public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Peter A. Buhr" <pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030227214600.3488.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)

The following reply was made to PR c++/9881; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Peter A. Buhr" <pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: asharji@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:39:14 -0500 (EST)

    Synopsis: Incorrect address calculation for static class member
 
    State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
    State-Changed-By: bangerth
    State-Changed-When: Thu Feb 27 18:22:41 2003
    State-Changed-Why:
        In this code,
 	 foo f; // print output
 
 	 double *module::b = &(((bar *)&module::storage)->p);
 	 double module::storage = 0.0;
 
        The constructor of foo is run before module::b is initialized.
        If you change this order, the output is as you expect.
 
        W.
 
    http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9881
 
 Your response is incorrect. First, the program generates the correct result
 with gcc3.2. If you run the example with both gcc3.2 and gcc3.3, you will see
 that the output is different. Hence, one can conclude that either gcc3.2 or
 gcc3.3 is wrong. Second, when the example program is run with the SUN compiler,
 it generates the same output as for gcc3.2, indicating that the problem is
 probably in gcc3.3. Third, the position of the constructor has nothing to do
 with the assignment to a static variable. The expression to initialize the
 static variable "module::b" *MUST* be evaluated at compiler time. All static
 variables *MUST* be initialized before any constructor is run because a
 constructor can refer to these variables. Finally, your suggestion is not even
 a work-around, because the original problem occurred in separate compilation
 units, so the notion of moving the constructor in this case does not apply.
 
 It is slightly disconcerting that you should close this bug report without at
 least checking with the people that reported the problem.


             reply	other threads:[~2003-02-27 21:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-27 21:46 Peter A. Buhr [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-02 22:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-02-28 13:56 Peter A. Buhr
2003-02-27 23:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-02-27 22:56 Peter A. Buhr
2003-02-27 22:06 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-02-27 21:40 bangerth
2003-02-27 18:22 bangerth
2003-02-27 18:06 asharji

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=20030227214600.3488.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca \
    --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=nobody@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).