On 06/20/2017 03:25 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
This patch fixes a couple of failures of the form:error: 'void* memset(void*, int, size_t)' clearing an object of non-trivial type 'struct quadratic_test'; use assignment or value-initialization instead [-Werror=class-memaccess] note: 'struct quadratic_test' declared here cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors seen within the jit testsuite, by using zero-initialization instead of memset. (presumably introduced by r249234 aka a324786b4ded9047d05463b4bce9d238b6c6b3ef) Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; takes jit.sum from: # of expected passes 9211 # of unexpected failures 2 to: # of expected passes 9349 Martin: it's unclear to me what the benefit of the warning is for these cases. AIUI, it's complaining because the code is calling the default ctor for struct quadratic_test, and then that object is being clobbered by the memset. But if I'm reading things right, the default ctor for this struct zero-initializes all fields. Can't the compiler simply optimize away the redundant memset, and not issue a warning?
-Wclass-memaccess is issued because struct quadratic_test contains members of classes that define a default ctor to initialize their private members. The premise behind the warning is that objects of types with user-defined default and copy ctors should be initialized by making use of their ctors, and those with private data members manipulated via member functions rather than by directly modifying their raw representation. Using memset to bypass the default ctor doesn't begin the lifetime of an object, can violate invariants set up by it, and using it to overwrite private members breaks encapsulation. Examples of especially insidious errors include overwriting const data, references, or pointer to data members for which zero-initialization isn't the same as clearing their bytes. The warning runs early on in the C++ front end and has no knowledge of either the effects of the type's ctors, dtor, and copy assignment operator, or whether the raw memory function is called in lieu of initializing an object (e.g., in storage obtained from malloc or operator new), or as a shortcut to zero out its members, or when zeroing them out happens to be safe and doesn't actually do any of those bad things I mentioned above. That said, I'm sorry (and a little surprised) that I missed these errors in my tests. I thought I had all the languages covered by using --enable-languages=all,ada,c,c++,fortran,go,lto,objc,obj-c++ but I guess jit still isn't implied by all, even after Nathan's recent change to it. Let me add jit to my script (IIRC, I once had it there but it was causing some trouble and I took it out.) Martin
