public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress
@ 2015-01-30 16:56 tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-30 18:16 ` [Bug c++/64877] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-30 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877
Bug ID: 64877
Summary: strange warning message from -Waddress
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
I found a spot in firefox that tries to prevent hiding
using:
explicit ScopedGLWrapper(GLContext* gl)
: mIsUnwrapped(false)
, mGL(gl)
{
MOZ_ASSERT(&ScopedGLWrapper<Derived>::Unwrap == &Derived::Unwrap);
[...]
void Unwrap() {
...
}
gcc 5 warns about this assert:
/home/tromey/firefox-git/gecko-dev/gfx/gl/ScopedGLHelpers.h:35:54: error: the
address of ‘void mozilla::gl::ScopedGLWrapper<Derived>::Unwrap() [with Derived
= mozilla::gl::ScopedGLState]’ will never be NULL [-Werror=address]
MOZ_ASSERT(&ScopedGLWrapper<Derived>::Unwrap == &Derived::Unwrap);
^
The message here is strange. Whether or not the address can be NULL
is not an issue. I don't see why -Waddress ought to warn here at all.
>From gcc-bugs-return-475537-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Jan 30 16:58:42 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475537-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29662 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2015 16:58:41 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29593 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jan 2015 16:58:35 -0000
From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/20710] g++ should warn when hiding non-virtual method in base class
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:58:00 -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: 3.4.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-20710-4-e15QIsjYqH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-20710-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-20710-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg03531.txt.bz2
Content-length: 833
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id 710
Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It would be nice to have a way to prevent hiding.
See the partial example in bug 64877. Here, gcc 5
warns about the construct used to prevent hiding.
However, "final" will not work as the function in question
is non-virtual.
The class in question is a base class, so it seems rather
strange to make the function "virtual final". And, while
not an issue in this particular case, that would in some
cases introduce a vtable where none was previously needed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-30 18:16 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:38 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-30 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #0) > The message here is strange. Whether or not the address can be NULL > is not an issue. I don't see why -Waddress ought to warn here at all. Hard to say without a minimized testcase. >From gcc-bugs-return-475555-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Jan 30 18:23:24 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475555-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12795 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2015 18:23:24 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12537 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jan 2015 18:23:13 -0000 From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug jit/64873] jit testsuite failures on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:23:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: jit X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution Message-ID: <bug-64873-4-iXDc2tHP9T@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-64873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-64873-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg03549.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1325 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd873 David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2) > I'll rerun the JIT build and tests, with the correct configuration flags for > this hardware, and with the candidate patches for PR jit/64810 (so that the > jit honors them). Indeed, upon applying the candidate fixes for PR jit/64810 posted to: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02704.html and reconfiguring with: --with-cpu-64=power7 --with-tune-64=power8 the jit testsuite successfully runs to completion on this "box", with everything passing (apart from known failure PR jit/64752); injected options are visible in jit logs as: configure_time_options[0]: -mtune=power8 configure_time_options[1]: -mcpu=power7 So this was a mixture of configuration error on my part, and a duplicate of PR jit/64810. Closing as a duplicate of PR jit/64810; sorry for the noise. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 64810 *** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:16 ` [Bug c++/64877] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-30 18:38 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-31 16:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-30 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 --- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > Hard to say without a minimized testcase. Yeah. The original code is here: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/gl/ScopedGLHelpers.h#35 My attempt to minimize it failed. Here's what I tried. I can't explain why this doesn't give any warnings as I would expect one on the second "assert", based on what the manual says. template<class Derived> struct S { void m() { } S() { if (&S<Derived>::Unwrap != &Derived::Unwrap) m(); if (!(&Derived::UnwrapImpl)) m(); } void Unwrap() { } }; struct T : public S<T> { void UnwrapImpl() { } }; T t; >From gcc-bugs-return-475558-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Jan 30 18:50:03 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475558-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25354 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2015 18:50:03 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25059 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jan 2015 18:49:53 -0000 From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:50:00 -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: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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-64877-4-lGSFrc7TO9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-64877-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-64877-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg03551.txt.bz2 Content-length: 638 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 --- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Oops, had the wrong gcc in $PATH. That test case does warn: pokyo. g++ -std=c++11 -c -Wall -Waddress -O2 x.cc x.cc: In instantiation of ‘S<Derived>::S() [with Derived = T]’: x.cc:19:8: required from here x.cc:9:29: warning: the address of ‘void S<Derived>::Unwrap() [with Derived = T]’ will never be NULL [-Waddress] if (&S<Derived>::Unwrap != &Derived::Unwrap) ^ I think I would expect a warning on the second assert, but not the first. >From gcc-bugs-return-475557-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Jan 30 18:50:03 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475557-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25320 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2015 18:50:01 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25151 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jan 2015 18:49:55 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:50:00 -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: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: cc Message-ID: <bug-64867-4-PFNVv4Sqm6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-64867-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-64867-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg03552.txt.bz2 Content-length: 423 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd867 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- FYI, g++ stopped warning on #c4 with r149721. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:16 ` [Bug c++/64877] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:38 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-31 16:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-31 17:38 ` [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-31 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2015-01-31 CC| |paolo.carlini at oracle dot com Version|unknown |5.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3) > Oops, had the wrong gcc in $PATH. > That test case does warn: > > pokyo. g++ -std=c++11 -c -Wall -Waddress -O2 x.cc > x.cc: In instantiation of ‘S<Derived>::S() [with Derived = T]’: > x.cc:19:8: required from here > x.cc:9:29: warning: the address of ‘void S<Derived>::Unwrap() [with Derived > = T]’ will never be NULL [-Waddress] > if (&S<Derived>::Unwrap != &Derived::Unwrap) > ^ > > > I think I would expect a warning on the second assert, but not the first. We hit this code in cp/typeck.c /* We generate: (op0.pfn == op1.pfn && (!op0.pfn || op0.delta == op1.delta)) The reason for the `!op0.pfn' bit is that a NULL pointer-to-member is any member with a zero PFN; the DELTA field is unspecified. */ e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, EQ_EXPR, delta0, delta1, complain); e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, EQ_EXPR, pfn0, build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (pfn0)), complain); e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, e1, e2, complain); thus, the !op0.pfn triggers the warning. It may be enough to pass tf_none instead of complain for the two compiler-generated expressions. Alternatively, since we know pfn0 cannot be NULL, do not generate this check. It seems quite wasteful to go through the huge cp_build_binary_op just to build something that will get optimized out. Not working on this, but it seems feasible to fix. If it is a regression, you may even convince someone to approve it for GCC 5. >From gcc-bugs-return-475632-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sat Jan 31 16:09:42 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475632-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10634 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2015 16:09:42 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10583 invoked by uid 48); 31 Jan 2015 16:09:37 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:09:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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-64877-4-MbRtXqLjx8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-64877-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-64877-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg03626.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1298 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- And just for the sake of completion, the warning we trigger is: else if (((code0 == POINTER_TYPE || TYPE_PTRDATAMEM_P (type0)) && null_ptr_cst_p (op1)) /* Handle, eg, (void*)0 (c++/43906), and more. */ || (code0 == POINTER_TYPE && TYPE_PTR_P (type1) && integer_zerop (op1))) { if (TYPE_PTR_P (type1)) result_type = composite_pointer_type (type0, type1, op0, op1, CPO_COMPARISON, complain); else result_type = type0; if (TREE_CODE (op0) == ADDR_EXPR B => && decl_with_nonnull_addr_p (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0))) { if ((complain & tf_warning) && c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings == 0) warning (OPT_Waddress, "the address of %qD will never be NULL", TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0)); } } It could be enough to test decl_with_nonnull_addr_p (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0)) to avoid building !op0.pfn when not needed. >From gcc-bugs-return-475633-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sat Jan 31 16:14:53 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475633-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14253 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2015 16:14:53 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14208 invoked by uid 48); 31 Jan 2015 16:14:49 -0000 From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64791] Generic lambda fails to implicitly capture `const` variable Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:14:00 -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: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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-64791-4-m8y6JpzYMz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-64791-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-64791-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg03627.txt.bz2 Content-length: 387 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd791 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> --- Weird, I tried on my machine yesterday's r220267 and same result, no warning (with -std=gnu++1z -Wall -Wextra). I guess that before closing this bug we need either to figure out what's special about that web page or another report that things are actually fine. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2015-01-31 16:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-31 17:38 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2015-02-03 17:22 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-03 17:23 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2015-01-31 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|strange warning message |[5 Regression] strange |from -Waddress |warning message from | |-Waddress --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> --- Thanks Manuel for the analysis. Indeed, now -Waddress is much more general, and those internally generated expressions are causing problems. Thus, following your suggestion, I would propose something like the below, which I'm finishing testing. Does it look Ok to you? Index: typeck.c =================================================================== --- typeck.c (revision 220306) +++ typeck.c (working copy) @@ -4552,35 +4552,44 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location, The reason for the `!op0.pfn' bit is that a NULL pointer-to-member is any member with a zero PFN and - LSB of the DELTA field is 0. */ + LSB of the DELTA field is 0. Note: avoid generating the + '|| (!op0.pfn && ...)' if !op0.pfn is known to be false. */ - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, BIT_AND_EXPR, - delta0, - integer_one_node, - complain); - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - EQ_EXPR, e1, integer_zero_node, - complain); - e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, BIT_AND_EXPR, - delta1, - integer_one_node, - complain); - e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - EQ_EXPR, e2, integer_zero_node, - complain); - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR, e2, e1, - complain); - e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, EQ_EXPR, - pfn0, - build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (pfn0)), - complain); - e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR, e2, e1, complain); - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - EQ_EXPR, delta0, delta1, complain); - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, e1, e2, complain); + if (TREE_CODE (pfn0) != ADDR_EXPR + || !decl_with_nonnull_addr_p (TREE_OPERAND (pfn0, 0))) + { + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, BIT_AND_EXPR, + delta0, + integer_one_node, + complain); + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + EQ_EXPR, e1, integer_zero_node, + complain); + e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, BIT_AND_EXPR, + delta1, + integer_one_node, + complain); + e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + EQ_EXPR, e2, integer_zero_node, + complain); + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR, e2, e1, + complain); + e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, EQ_EXPR, + pfn0, + build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (pfn0)), + complain); + e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR, e2, e1, complain); + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + EQ_EXPR, delta0, delta1, complain); + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, e1, e2, complain); + + } + else + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + EQ_EXPR, delta0, delta1, complain); } else { @@ -4591,17 +4600,22 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location, The reason for the `!op0.pfn' bit is that a NULL pointer-to-member is any member with a zero PFN; the - DELTA field is unspecified. */ + DELTA field is unspecified. Note: avoid generating the + '!op0.pfn ||' if !op0.pfn is known to be false. */ e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, EQ_EXPR, delta0, delta1, complain); - e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - EQ_EXPR, - pfn0, - build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (pfn0)), - complain); - e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, - TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, e1, e2, complain); + if (TREE_CODE (pfn0) != ADDR_EXPR + || !decl_with_nonnull_addr_p (TREE_OPERAND (pfn0, 0))) + { + e2 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + EQ_EXPR, + pfn0, + build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (pfn0)), + complain); + e1 = cp_build_binary_op (location, + TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, e1, e2, complain); + } } e2 = build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node, pfn0, pfn1); e = cp_build_binary_op (location, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2015-01-31 17:38 ` [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2015-02-03 17:22 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-03 17:23 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: paolo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-03 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 --- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org <paolo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Feb 3 17:21:49 2015 New Revision: 220374 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220374&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2015-02-03 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/64877 * typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Avoid spurious -Waddress warnings for generated expressions. /testsuite 2015-02-03 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/64877 * g++.dg/warn/Waddress-2.C: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Waddress-2.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] strange warning message from -Waddress 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2015-02-03 17:22 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-03 17:23 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2015-02-03 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com | Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |5.0 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> --- Fixed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-03 17:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-01-30 16:56 [Bug c++/64877] New: strange warning message from -Waddress tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:16 ` [Bug c++/64877] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 18:38 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-31 16:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-31 17:38 ` [Bug c++/64877] [5 Regression] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2015-02-03 17:22 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-03 17:23 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
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).