From: "Aniruddh Agarwal" <me@anrddh.me>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [RFC] Warnings for cases where int promotion is unexpected and may cause bugs
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:11:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60377b43-444e-421b-afaa-85fccbf331ee@www.fastmail.com> (raw)
Hello,
A colleague patched a prod-critical bug today caused by an overlooked implicit int promotion when adding uint8_t's. g++ (v12.1) doesn't report any warnings for it with all combinations of warnings flags that I've tried, so I thought I'd ask if:
- there *is* already some combination of warning flags that *would* report a warning for this code
- if not, then if there's any interest in work (which of course I'd be happy to contribute to) on detecting and flagging this sort of problem.
A (much simplified) example which illustrates the bug:
#+BEGIN_SRC cpp
#include <cstdint>
using std::uint8_t;
bool foo(uint8_t a, uint8_t b, uint8_t c) {
return (a + b) == c;
}
#+END_SRC
Here's the problem: the expectation here is that "a + b" will have type uint8_t. So, for example it expects "foo(200, 200, 144)" to return "true".
In reality, "a + b" implicitly promotes to an "int" and so we end up comparing 400 and 144, which returns false.
(Side note, not immediately relevant: I'm not sure if this ends up being equivalent to calling something like a "bool operator==(int, uint8_t)" or if the RHS is also implicitly promoted to an int before the comparison. This is irrelevant for the immediate example because the end result is the same in either case, but I would appreciate it if someone can shed light on what the standard has to say on this for future reference.)
A correct implementation of the expected behavior is instead therefore:
#+BEGIN_SRC cpp
#include <cstdint>
using std::uint8_t;
bool foo(uint8_t a, uint8_t b, uint8_t c) {
return static_cast<uint8_t>(a + b) == c;
}
#+END_SRC
Does anyone else find this very surprising, and as I asked above, does it seem worthwhile to try to flag code like in the first snippet? I don't know what gcc's general policy on trying to warn about code like this is. The new theoretical warning would be in the spirit of -Wconversion.
-Ani
next reply other threads:[~2022-06-17 1:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-17 1:11 Aniruddh Agarwal [this message]
2022-06-17 1:14 ` Aniruddh Agarwal
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=60377b43-444e-421b-afaa-85fccbf331ee@www.fastmail.com \
--to=me@anrddh.me \
--cc=gcc@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).