[Bug c++/64877] strange warning message from -Waddress

["manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

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.