public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "andrew2085 at gmail dot com" <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, 05 Jun 2020 14:30:15 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-95349-4-tsT1fSSSH7@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 #35 from Andrew Downing <andrew2085 at gmail dot com> --- I agree that the new implicit object creation rules sound very difficult to implement correctly especially because the behavior in C is different. I'm curious to see how that will all play out. In this situation though, if we use the C rules for what memcpy does C17 6.5/6 https://web.archive.org/web/20181230041359if_/http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/abq/c17_updated_proposed_fdis.pdf#section.6.5, the effective type shouldn't be changed. The declared type of both objects is known to the compiler. In the first memcpy the declared type of the object is unsigned char[8], in the second memcpy the declared type of the object is double. Placement new changes the effective type to std::uint64_t, but that doesn't change the behavior of memcpy. Footnote 88 says "Allocated objects have no declared type.". I believe calling a function defined in another TU that returns a pointer also has to be considered to return a pointer to an object with no declared type, because the object's declaration isn't visible. In this situation though, the declared types are visible, and so a modifying access, or memcpy, or memmove shouldn't change the effective type. If gcc is changing the effective type with every memcpy no matter what, that would be the wrong thing to do right? Especially since you're saying that it's the reason that this example isn't being compiled correctly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-05 14:30 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 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 [this message] 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-tsT1fSSSH7@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: linkBe 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).