rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExprScalar.cpp:1647
+ }
+ }
+
----------------
Prazek wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Prazek wrote:
> > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > Prazek wrote:
> > > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > > Incidentally, how do you protect against code like this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A *ptr;
> > > > > > reinterpret_cast<B *&>(ptr) = new B();
> > > > > > ptr->foo();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Presumably there needs to be a launder/strip here, but I guess it
> > > > > > would have to be introduced by the middle-end when forwarding the
> > > > > > store? The way I've written this is an aliasing violation, but (1)
> > > > > > I assume your pass isn't disabled whenever strict-aliasing is
> > > > > > disabled and (2) you can do this with a memcpy and still pretty
> > > > > > reliably expect that LLVM will be able to eventually forward the
> > > > > > store.
> > > > > Can you add more info on what is A and B so I can make sure I
> > > > > understand it correctly?
> > > > > Is the prefix of the layout the same for both, but they are not in
> > > > > the hierarchy?
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't thought about the strict aliasing. I think the only sane
> > > > > way would be to require strict aliasing for the strict vtable
> > > > > pointers.
> > > > It's whatever case you're worried about such that you have to launder
> > > > member accesses and bitcasts.
> > > >
> > > > And like I mentioned, relying on strict aliasing isn't enough because
> > > > you can do it legally with memcpy. Maybe it's okay to consider it UB?
> > > > I'm not sure about that.
> > > AFAIK reinterpreting one class as another is UB if they are not in
> > > hierarchy (especially calling virtual function on reinterpreted class),
> > > not sure if strict aliasing should allow it anyway (if it would be a hand
> > > written custom vptr then it should be ok with strict aliasing turned off,
> > > but with vptr I don't think it is legal).
> > > @rsmith Can you comment on that?
> > OK, here's how I think about what we're doing here:
> >
> > We view the IR-level pointer value for a pointer to a dynamic class type as
> > being a fat pointer, containing the actual pointer value and also a tag
> > indicating the dynamic type of the object (only notionally, though -- the
> > actual bit representation of the pointer doesn't include the extra
> > information, but we don't ever emit IR that inspects the bit representation
> > of the fat pointer to avoid exposing that fact). In that model, if you try
> > to type pun between a pointer to a dynamic class type and a pointer to a
> > non-dynamic-class type, that can't be expected to work because the
> > (notional) value is different, much as type punning between a derived and
> > base class pointer wouldn't work for a pointer to something other than a
> > base class at offset zero.
> >
> > I think @rjmccall's example is OK, because both `A` and `B` would need to
> > be dynamic class types in a hierarchy to work, and that means we'd be using
> > the same notional pointer representation. A slight variation of that
> > example:
> >
> > ```
> > struct A {};
> > struct B : A { virtual void f(); };
> > struct C : B { void f(); } c;
> > A *p = &c;
> > B *q;
> > memcpy(&q, &p, sizeof(B*)); // or q = std::bit_cast<B*>(p);
> > q->f();
> > ```
> >
> > ... would be UB, because the representation of an `A*` and a `B*` are
> > different (a `B*` contains a tag and an `A*` does not).
> Does this answer satisfy you John? Can I push it to trunk?
Yeah, Richard's answer makes sense to me.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47299
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
