public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 21:50:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-95349-4-QLHDlnlfQl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-95349-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349

--- Comment #18 from Richard Smith <richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk> ---
(In reply to Andrew Downing from comment #17)
> Also none of the behavior described in p0593 is required for this C++
> program to be well defined. All objects that are required to exists here are
> created explicitly. It's not relying on the implicit creation of any
> objects. This is valid C++17 code.

I agree, for what it's worth. I think the only thing that might suggest
otherwise is the wording in the C standard that says that memcpy copies the
effective type, but that doesn't mean anything in C++ (and it's also specified
in the language section of C, not the library section, so isn't part of the
wording that C++ incorporates by reference).

C++ doesn't have any wording that says what value an object has after you
memcpy the representation of a value of a different type over it, but there
isn't any provision for memcpy to change the dynamic type of the object prior
to P0593 (and after P0593, memcpy is only allowed to change the dynamic type if
doing so makes the program's behavior more defined).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-29 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-26 20:45 [Bug c++/95349] New: " andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-27  8:04 ` [Bug c++/95349] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-27  9:14 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-27  9:40 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-05-27 11:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-27 14:45 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-27 15:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-27 15:19 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-27 16:01 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-29 10:59 ` ed at catmur dot uk
2020-05-29 11:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-29 11:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-29 13:53 ` ed at catmur dot uk
2020-05-29 14:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-29 14:24 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-05-29 15:05 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-29 18:07 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-05-29 21:00 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-29 21:50 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk [this message]
2020-05-29 23:13 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-05-29 23:25 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-06-02 12:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-02 12:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-02 16:00 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-02 16:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-02 16:34 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-02 16:37 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-02 17:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-02 18:43 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-02 20:53 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-03  6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-04  0:27 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-04  6:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-04 16:05 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-05  6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-05 14:30 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-15  9:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 21:45 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-06-16  3:27 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2020-06-16  6:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-16  6:57 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-16 13:56 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2022-01-11 12:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-11 12:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-14  4:53 ` andrew2085 at gmail dot com
2024-06-03  8:02 ` Christopher.Nerz at de dot bosch.com
2024-06-03  8:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-03  9:13 ` Christopher.Nerz at de dot bosch.com
2024-06-03  9:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-03 10:26 ` Christopher.Nerz at de dot bosch.com
2024-06-03 11:19 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-06-03 15:53 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-03 16:00 ` redi 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-95349-4-QLHDlnlfQl@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).