public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "muecker at gwdg dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/99797] New: accessing uninitialized automatic variables Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 13:47:01 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99797-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99797 Bug ID: 99797 Summary: accessing uninitialized automatic variables Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: muecker at gwdg dot de Target Milestone: --- Consider the following example which accesses an uninitialized variable: static volatile int d = 0; void bar(int c); void foo(void) { char c; //&c; //char *p = &c; if (!c) bar(0); if (d) c = 1; if (c) bar(1); } GCC produces code where 'bar' is called twice. According to the C standard, the code is UB so this is technically OK. Still I think it is dangerous and I would prefer a more consistent behavior. When taking the address and assigning it to 'p' GCC produces code which actually checks the variable 'd'. I am not sure why this happens (it is unnecessary). Still when taking the address of 'c' the code is not UB and the generated code is OK. Finally, when taking the address and not assigning it, the code is the same as for the first case where 'bar' is called twice. This seems incorrect as the code is not UB (according to my reading of the C standard). Ideally, I think GCC should reject code when it is clearly UB (address not taken). If it does not reject the code, I think it should assume an unspecified yet consistent value is read. Producing code that assumes c == 0 and c != 0 at different points in time (without intervening write) is really dangerous and should be avoided.
next reply other threads:[~2021-03-27 13:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-03-27 13:47 muecker at gwdg dot de [this message] 2021-03-27 19:19 ` [Bug c/99797] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-27 19:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-28 6:32 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2021-03-28 7:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-28 7:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-30 6:35 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2021-04-14 20:18 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2021-04-18 18:09 ` [Bug middle-end/99797] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-19 5:43 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2021-04-19 10:43 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com 2021-04-19 18:57 ` muecker at gwdg dot de 2021-04-20 15:20 ` msebor 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-99797-4@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).