From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-496346-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 121874 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2015 09:02:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 121831 invoked by uid 48); 4 Sep 2015 09:02:08 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/56568] std::initializer_list return value contents lost prematurely
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56568-4-c9FFyvxfTe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56568-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56568-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to fuzzyTew from comment #4)
> I'm not as experienced in the details.  I think perhaps my example is
> invalid as you state but the original testcase is not (see &&).

That makes no difference. Using my previous example, David's original testcase
is roughly equivalent to:

const int& f() {
  long i = 0;
  return i;
}

auto&& i = f();

It's irrelevant what you do with the result, f() returns a dangling reference
to an object that doesn't exist after the function returns.


(In reply to David Krauss from comment #5)
> I'm working on an ISO proposal (http://bit.ly/genlife) to fix some such
> cases in C++17, but all it would do for return values is allow the compiler
> to produce a warning. The way initializer_list works, the sequence is
> intrinsically incapable of escaping the current scope, much less the current
> function.

Right.

I opened PR 67445 to suggest a warning for cases like this, but I don't expect
it to be implemented any time soon.