On 21/01/20 21:36 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

Padding in mbstate_t objects may get the memcmp to fail.
Attempt to avoid the failure with zero initialization.


Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, and also tested on a platform that used
to fail because of padding in std::mbstate_t.  Ok to install?

Under what conditions does this fail? Only for -std=gnu++98 and not
later standards, I assume?

Because since C++11 state_type() does perform zero-initialization of
the whole object (including padding) even if it has a default
constructor.



for  libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog

        * testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc: Zero-init mbstate_t.
---
testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc 
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc
index f92d68f..559bd8d 100644
--- libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc
+++ libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/fpos/mbstate_t/1.cc
@@ -28,8 +28,24 @@
void test01()
{
  typedef std::mbstate_t state_type;
-  state_type state01 = state_type();
-  state_type state02 = state_type();
+  // Use zero-initialization of the underlying memory so that padding
+  // bytes, if any, stand a better chance of comparing the same.
+  // Zero-initialized memory is guaranteed to be a valid initial
+  // state.  This doesn't quite guarantee that any padding bits won't
+  // be overwritten when copying from other instances that haven't
+  // been fully initialized: this data type is compatible with C, so
+  // it is likely plain old data, but it could have a default ctor
+  // that initializes only the relevant fields, whereas copy-ctor and
+  // operator= could be implemented as a full-object memcpy, including
+  // padding bits, rather than fieldwise copying.  However, since
+  // we're comparing two values copied from the same state_type
+  // instance (or was this meant to take one of them from pos02 rather
+  // than both from pos01?),

I don't think so, that wouldn't work. I think pos02 could just be
removed from the test.

Reply via email to