public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "xinliangli at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/53220] [4.7/4.8 Regression] g++ mis-compiles compound literals
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 00:34:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-53220-4-gw5tWV2GHT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-53220-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220

--- Comment #9 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> 2012-05-08 00:16:30 UTC ---

c++11 defines the lifetime of a temporary -- does it match C or g++'s semantics
of compound literals or neither?

Note that without your change, the original program may also be subject to
runtime failures due to escaped life ranges of the scoped variables leading to
bad stack layout -- though such bugs are more subtle and less likely to be
triggered.

David


(In reply to comment #8)
> The thing is, C++11 introduces list-initialized temporaries; I could rewrite
> the testcase in C++11 as
> 
> extern "C" int printf (const char *, ...);
> 
> int main()
> {
>   typedef int AR[4];
>   for (int *p = AR{1,2,3,0}; *p; ++p)
>     {
>       printf ("%d\n", *p);
>     }
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> so it made sense to me for compound literals to have the same semantics;
> otherwise you have a difference in lifetime based on whether or not the type is
> wrapped in parentheses.
> 
> I definitely agree that we need to give a diagnostic about taking the address
> of a temporary here.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-05-08  0:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-03 19:50 [Bug c++/53220] New: " ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-03 19:53 ` [Bug c++/53220] " ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-03 22:38 ` [Bug c++/53220] [4.7/4.8 Regression] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-05-04  9:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-04 18:53 ` xinliangli at gmail dot com
2012-05-07 14:33 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-07 16:25 ` xinliangli at gmail dot com
2012-05-07 16:55 ` ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-07 17:18 ` xinliangli at gmail dot com
2012-05-07 17:55 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-08  0:34 ` xinliangli at gmail dot com [this message]
2012-05-08  2:22 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-17  0:13 ` ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-22 17:42 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 17:50 ` ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-22 18:05 ` ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-05-26 21:20 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-30 14:52 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-03  4:50 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-20  1:59 ` ppluzhnikov at google dot com
2012-06-20  7:20 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-01  9:54 ` superaxioma at hotmail dot com
2013-05-01 19:13 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-28 21:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-53220-4-gw5tWV2GHT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).