From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-31249-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23997 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2008 11:14:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 23989 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2008 11:14:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-out1.netspace.net.au (HELO mail.netspace.net.au) (203.10.110.71)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:14:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (220-253-35-22.VIC.netspace.net.au [220.253.35.22]) 	by mail.netspace.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA12D4A405 	for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:14:24 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <47947E92.8060004@netspace.net.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:25:00 -0000
From: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC:  gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: warning: comparison with string literal results in unspecified      behaviour
References: <47934A5D.2080608@netspace.net.au> <47937327.6010105@redhat.com> <4793ED01.50108@netspace.net.au> <4794757E.3020108@redhat.com> <47947C1E.3000502@netspace.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <47947C1E.3000502@netspace.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2

Russell Shaw wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Russell Shaw wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> Russell Shaw wrote:
>>>>> How do i disable that? My code explicitly compares string pointers.
>>>>
>>>> The best way is to intern all your strings.  String interning is a
>>>> fairly common efficient technique and you can look it up in Google.
>>>
>>> I've seen that in Xlib code. There's no reason to do it if you're
>>> not storing strings on a remote host.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>> I store pointers to const strings in various objects and use them
>>> much like magic numbers, so direct pointer comparisons are the ideal
>>> thing to do.
>>>
>>> This warning never happened on older gcc versions.
>>>
>>> Infact, the warning is incorrect for this valid use.
>>>
>>> It's just unnecessary nannying.
>>>
>>> I've been using it in thousands of lines of code for 5 years.
>>
>> OK, this might be a bug in gcc.  I just looked at the gcc source
>> (appended below) and as far as I can see that message is only
>> generated when there is a real error such as
>>
>>    if (str == "Hello")
>>
>> Do you have a case where conforming code triggers this warning?
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>>
>>   /* Warn about comparisons against string literals, with the exception
>>      of testing for equality or inequality of a string literal with 
>> NULL.  */
>>   if (code == EQ_EXPR || code == NE_EXPR)
>>     {
>>       if ((code1 == STRING_CST && !integer_zerop (arg2.value))
>>       || (code2 == STRING_CST && !integer_zerop (arg1.value)))
>>     warning (OPT_Waddress, "comparison with string literal results in 
>> unspecified behavior");
>>     }
>>   else if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_comparison
>>        && (code1 == STRING_CST || code2 == STRING_CST))
>>     warning (OPT_Waddress, "comparison with string literal results in 
>> unspecified behavior");
> 
> Hi,
> I just found from the gcc list that Wno-address stops the complaints.
> 
> I couldn't find that option on the gcc-3.4.3 manpage.
> 
> 
> Here is some code:
> 
> 
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<stdlib.h>
> 
> #define MAGIC    "object"
> #define TYPE1    "type1"
> #define TYPE2    "type2"
> 
> #define OB1(ob)    (ob->type == TYPE1)
> #define OB2(ob)    (ob->type == TYPE2)
> 
> #define IS_OBJ    (ob->magic == MAGIC)
> 
> typedef struct {
>     const char *magic;
>     const char *type;
> } Object;
> 
> static Object *
> object_new(const char *type)
> {
>     Object *object = calloc(1, sizeof(Object));
>     object->magic = MAGIC;
>     object->type = type;
>     return object;
> }
> 
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>     Object *ob1 = object_new(TYPE1);
> 
>     Object *ob2 = object_new(TYPE2);
> 
>     Object *ob3 = ob2;
> 
>     if(ob1->type == ob2->type) {
>     printf("same, %s %s\n", ob1->type, ob2->type);
>     }
>     else {
>     printf("different, %s %s\n", ob1->type, ob2->type);
>     }
> 
>     if(ob2->type == ob3->type) {
>     printf("same, %s %s\n", ob2->type, ob3->type);
>     }
>     else {
>     printf("different, %s %s\n", ob2->type, ob3->type);
>     }
> 
>     if(ob3->magic == MAGIC) {
>     printf("is object, %s\n", ob3->type);
>     }
> }
> 

Scrap that example. ob3->magic == MAGIC is two separate strings.