Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

[bangerth]

Old Synopsis: gcc/g++ issues error instead of warning on non-ISO array assignment.
New Synopsis: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Sat Mar 22 04:22:53 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Confirmed, kind of. First thing of course is that
    -pedantic converts errors into warnings. This has been
    shown in other PRs previously.
    
    That gcc doesn't allow array copies any more is a 
    feature -- i.e., it is an extension of earlier versions
    that was abandoned. 
    
    The thing with variably sized arrays: I think this is in
    deferrence to C99. However, it is also accepted by g++
    with -std=c++98, which I think is wrong.
    
    W.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10065

Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

[giovannibajo]

Synopsis: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: bajo
State-Changed-When: Fri May 16 01:59:54 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Can't see a reason to keep this open. The problem with
    -pedantic converting errors to warning is already handled
    in c++/10032.
    Variable sized array are not supposed to be disabled with
    -ansi or -std=c++98 because they can't possibly conflict
    with well-formed ISO programs. The official way to disable
    extension is to use -pedantic, and -pedantic correctly
    reports a warning about it.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10065

Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98

[Giovanni Bajo]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10065; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
To: "Baldwin, Arthur W" <Arthur.Baldwin@gd-ais.com>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accepted in -std=c++98
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:27:06 +0200

 Baldwin, Arthur W <Arthur.Baldwin@gd-ais.com> wrote:
 
 > I do not understand the resolution of this problem.  The response below
 says
 > in part:
 >
 >     Variable sized array are not supposed to be disabled with
 >     -ansi or -std=c++98 because they can't possibly conflict
 >     with well-formed ISO programs.
 >
 > The reason I reported the issue is that I cannot compile a program with
 > variable sized arrays with flags such as -ansi or -std=c++98.  The
 compiler
 > (gcc-3.2.2 on Linux) issues errors and aborts the build.  With -pedantic,
 > however, I get a warning, but the build completes. Older versions of the
 > compiler handled the variable sized arrays without any flags.
 
 Sorry if I wasn't clear. There are two different issues in your code:
 
 *************************
 
 First issue (within main()): you are assigning arrays (lines 19 "y = x", and
 28 "y2 = x2"). This is forbidden by ISO C++ standard. GCC correctly emits an
 error about this:
 
 arrayTest.cc:19: ISO C++ forbids assignment of arrays
 arrayTest.cc:28: ISO C++ forbids assignment of arrays
 
 Now, this is a hard error, as it should be. The workaround is memcpy(), of
 course. *BUT*, GCC currently has a bug: when you add -pedantic, some errors
 magically turns into warnings (this very problem is tracked by PR10032). So
 your compilation incorrectly succeeds with -pedantic because of this bug.
 This behaviour has nothing to do with -ansi or -std, becuase they don't have
 this magic bug. You can isolate your main() function into a separate file,
 and experiment with it to check what I'm saying. As you can see, this
 funciton does not contain variable length arrays, so it has nothing to do
 with it (and the error message does not speak about variable length array,
 it speaks about assignment of arrays).
 
 *************************
 
 Second issue (within printMatrix()): you are using variable lentgh arrays
 here. This is a GCC extension, so it is accepted by GCC. -ansi (or -std)
 turn off _only_ GCC extensions that might conflict (as in: change the
 meaning / reject) of a well-formed ISO C++ program. Since a well-formed ISO
 C++ program would be invalid with variable length array, this extension does
 not conflict with the standard in any way, and it is not turned off
 with -ansi/-std. If one wants to disable GCC extension altogether, the right
 option is "-pedantic" (or "-pedantic-errors"). When you put "-pedantic" on
 the command line, GCC emits a warning about your variable length arrays (as
 it should):
 
 arrayTest.cc:38: warning: ISO C++ forbids variable-size array `matrixType'
 arrayTest.cc:38: warning: ISO C++ forbids variable-size array `matrixType'
 
  If you put "-pedantic-error", it emits an error about it (as it should).
 Everything works as expected. You can isolate your printMatrix() function
 and check this behaviour.
 
 
  > The question is:  Does gcc support variable sized arrays or not,
 
 Yes, and it works for you in fact. Exactly like it should.
 
 > and will
 > the compiler support the variable sized arrays into the future?
 
 I can't foresee the future, but if it will be ever removed, be sure that
 there will be some deprecation warning for at least one major version. For
 now, it's ok.
 
 > We have
 > legacy, delivered code that exploits the variable-sized array capability
 of
 > an older compiler, and I have to know whether we should prepare to rewrite
 > the code in a maintenance upgrade when we evolve to a new OS and new
 > compiler.  At the moment, the only way I could redeliver the code would be
 > to compile with -pedantic, and then explain away the warnings.  Without
 > -pedantic, IT WON'T COMPILE.
 
 This has _nothing_ to do with variable length array. Your code is ill-formed
 because it copies two arrays, in line 19 and 28. I don't know if this used
 to be a GCC extension, but surely it is not anymore. You should rewrite your
 code in those lines to use memcpy().
 
 The fact that it works with -pedantic is only a side effect of the bug
 tracked by PR10032 (-pedantic sometimes incorrectly turns errors into
 warnings, allowing compilation of ill-formed code).
 
 > Sorry if I'm being dense about the response, but it doesn't seem to
 address
 > my concern.
 
 
 I hope that everything is clear now. The only issue in your PR is
 about -pendatic turning errors into warnings, and it's already tracked by
 another open PR. So I closed yours.
 
 Giovanni Bajo