Considering the following piece of code :
extern int var;
void foo(int & param)
{
(void) param;
}
int main(void)
{
foo(*(&var));
return 0;
}
Compiled this way :
$ g++ -Os -o test.o -c test.cpp
$ g++ test.o
But when I remove the -Os flag, there is an undefined reference to var.
What kind of optimization are enabled by -Os to skip this undefined reference ? (I tried to replace the flag by all the optimizations it enable according to the GCC documentation but I can't reproduce without -Os.
Another question, when I compile the sample in one go :
$ g++ -c test.c
There is no error even though there is no optimization flag, why ?
After performing some binary search on the flags, the relevant one appears to be -fipa-pure-const, demo here. The description is "Discover which functions are pure or constant. Enabled by default at -O1 and higher.", which presumably includes noticing that foo doesn't actually do anything with param.
Related
I have these three files:
test.h
inline int foo(int i) {
return i;
}
asdf1.cpp
#include "test.h"
int main () {
}
asdf2.cpp
#include "test.h"
int bar () {
return 42;
}
When compiling with g++ asdf1.cpp asdf2.cpp, this happens:
$ g++ asdf1.cpp asdf2.cpp
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccTPkxPK.o: in function `foo(int)':
asdf2.cpp:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `foo(int)'; /tmp/ccJLbLeL.o:asdf1.cpp:(.text+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
$ g++ asdf1.cpp asdf2.cpp -O1
$ g++ asdf1.cpp asdf2.cpp -Wpedantic
$ g++ asdf1.cpp asdf2.cpp -std=c++14
$ # all of the above work
Why does g++ ignore the inline keyword unless some unrelated flag is given?
Especially weird since, with the -v flag, g++ tells me that it's using c++14 even when nothing is specified. Also, as far as I'm aware, the inline keyword (in this usage) exists in every C++ standard.
I am writing a program that calls an external string array from within a compiled static library.
When I compile and run the program in 64-bit, it works without issue. However, when I try to call the external array when compiling code in* 32-bit*, it give a Segmentation Fault when running main.
Here is the code:
Header declaration "hoenyB_lib.h:
#ifndef HONEYB_LIB_H_
#define HONEYB_LIB_H_
#include <string>
extern std::string honeyB_libs[];
#endif
Extern definition HoneyB_lib.cpp:
#include <string>
std::string honeyB_libs[] = { "libHoneyB.so", "libHoneyB3.so", "libHoneyB2.so", "" };
Extern use HoneyB_fcn.cpp:
deque<string> get_array()
{
deque<string> dst;
int i =0;
for(;;)
{
if(honeyB_libs[i] == "")
break;
else
{
dst.push_front(honeyB_libs[i]);
i++;
}
}
return dst;
}
The Makefile to compile this is as follows:
all:
$(CC) -c -Wall -fPIC source.cpp
$(CC) -g -c -fPIC honeyB_fcn.cpp
ar rcs libHB.a honeyB_fcn.o
g++ -g -c -fPIC honeyB_lib.cpp
g++ --whole-archive -shared -o libHoneyB.so source.o honeyB_lib.o libHB.a
g++ -L. -o main main.cpp -lHoneyB
This works without issue when main() is called. However, when I compile as 32-bit with the following:
all32:
$(CC) -m32 -c -Wall -fPIC source.cpp
$(CC) -m32 -g -c -fPIC honeyB_fcn.cpp
ar rcs libHB.a honeyB_fcn.o
g++ -m32 -g -c -fPIC honeyB_lib.cpp
g++ --whole-archive -m32 -shared -o libHoneyB.so source.o honeyB_lib.o libHB.a
g++ -m32 -L. -o main main.cpp -lHoneyB
The code give a Segmentation Fault. If I remove the call in honeyB_fct.cpp to honeyB_libs[], the code compiles and executes.
Does anybody have any idea why this fails for 32-bit, but works for 64?
Thanks in advance.
Order of initialization between different translation units is undefined. You have no guarantee that global variables in HoneyB_lib.cpp will be initialized before they are used in HoneyB_fcn.cpp. The only reason it worked for the 64-bit version is because you got lucky.
There are a couple workarounds:
Define the array in honeyB_lib.h, wrapped in an anonymous namespace to get around the ODR. Each TU that includes your header will have its own copy of the array.
Again, define the array in the header, but put it inside of a function that returns the array. The compiler should optimize it out everywhere, but if not you can make the array static in the scope of the function and return by reference (i.e. make it a singleton).
As a side note, I'd recommend a std::array instead of a raw array; this will let you do honeyB_libs.size() (or even for (auto&& lib : honeyB_libs) {...}) instead of relying on the "" sentinel value, which would clean up your get_array function a bit.
Thank you for the help. It appears that the problem had to do with the bit count of strings in 32-bit vs 64-bit. Changing honeyB_libs[] from a string array to a const char* array solved the issue.
honeyB_lib.h
extern const char* honeyB_libs[];
honeyB_lib.cpp
const char* honeyB_libs[] = { "libHoneyB.so", "libHoneyB3.so", "libHoneyB2.so", "" }
function.cpp
deque<string> get_array()
{
deque<string> dst;
string temp;
int i =0;
for(;;)
{
if(strlen(honeyB_libs[i]) == 0)
break;
else
{
temp = honeyB_libs[i];
dst.push_front(temp);
i++;
}
}
return dst;
}
Doing this allows my program to compile and run as 64-bit and 32-bit
I've been trying to compile with std::atomic, and I'm getting unresolved references to __atomic_load, __atomic_store, and __atomic_store_16.
I know in a later version of gcc (4.8+?) you include -latomic, but I'm compiling with gcc 4.7.3; I've tried adding -latomic_ops and -latomic_ops_gpl, but neither seem to do much.
I am installing gcc 4.8.1 now, but I do have a release platform that'll really need to be compiled for 4.7.3.
Many thanks.
Edit:
Ok, here's some code that results in the problem I have:
atomics.cpp
#include <atomic>
#include <stdint.h>
struct dataStruct {
int a;
uint16_t b;
float c;
dataStruct(int ai, uint16_t bi, float ci) noexcept : a(ai), b(bi), c(ci) {
}
dataStruct() noexcept : dataStruct(0,0,0) {
}
};
int main() {
std::atomic<dataStruct> atomicValue;
atomicValue = dataStruct(10, 0, 0);
return atomicValue.load().b;
}
With "g++-4.8.1 *.cpp -std=c++0x -latomic", this compiles fine.
With "g++-4.7.3 *.cpp -std=c++0x -pthread -lpthread -latomic_ops", it fails with the following:
/tmp/ccQp8MJ2.o: In function `std::atomic<dataStruct>::load(std::memory_order) const':
atomics.cpp:(.text._ZNKSt6atomicI10dataStructE4loadESt12memory_order[_ZNKSt6atomicI10dataStructE4loadESt12memory_order]+0x2f): undefined reference to `__atomic_load'
/tmp/ccQp8MJ2.o: In function `std::atomic<dataStruct>::store(dataStruct, std::memory_order)':
atomics.cpp:(.text._ZNSt6atomicI10dataStructE5storeES0_St12memory_order[_ZNSt6atomicI10dataStructE5storeES0_St12memory_order]+0x35): undefined reference to `__atomic_store'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Ok, finally found the answer at: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM
Turns out, 4.7 did not in fact have 'official' atomics support (just the header files). If you want to use atomics in 4.7 compilers, you must download the source code linked on that page and build it yourself
gcc -c -o libatomic.o libatomic.c
ar rcs libatomic.a libatomic.o
Then, you can build it using
g++-4.7.3 -std=c++0x atomics.cpp -latomic -L./
I have hpp file with declaration:
namespace X {
class Y {
public:
[other functions]
inline float basicFunction();
int someFunction();
[other functions]
};
}
And in cpp file:
namespace X {
[implementations etc.]
inline float Y::basicFunction() {
return someValue * someMath / moreMath;
}
int Y::someFunction() {
return basicFunction() * 100;
}
[other functions]
}
I'm using it at other cpp file, but I think this isn't problem. Compiling with:
g++ -c someclass.cpp -o someclass.o -std=c++11
g++ -c main.cpp -o main.o -std=c++11
g++ main.o someclass.o -o main -std=c++11 -O0
Throw error:
main.o: In function `main':
main.cpp:(.text+0x4d9): undefined reference to `X::Y::someFunction()'
Why? How I can compile it correct?
I know that someFunction() is useless, but this is called many times and I just like that way.
All code above isn't real, so may have bugs, but on my program it's (I think) correct
I tried many combinations (both functions with same return type, both inline, none inline etc.) and no effect.
Solved. Function cannot be inline.
Still don't know why it worked after some attempts after deleted inline but nevermind.
Explanation why function in this code can't be inline is simple. Compiler, when see "inline", don't create pointer to function, but paste code in the place of reference.
Just my mistake...
Suppose we have the following code:
#if !defined(__cplusplus)
# error This file should be compiled as C++
#endif
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string>
//#define USE_CXX_CLASS
#ifdef USE_CXX_CLASS
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass() {}
~SomeClass() {}
std::string GetSomeString()
{
// case #1
}
};
#endif // USE_CXX_CLASS
int foo()
{
// case #2
}
int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
(void)argc;
(void)argv;
#ifdef USE_CXX_CLASS
SomeClass someInstance;
someInstance.GetSomeString();
#endif // USE_CXX_CLASS
foo();
return 0;
}
And suppose that it were to be compiled the C++ compiler (and not the C compiler) from GCC version 4.2.1 with the options -Wreturn-type -Werror=return-type. If the above code is compiled as is without first uncommenting the //#define USE_CXX_CLASS line above, then you will see a warning but no error:
.../gcc-4.2.1/bin/g++ -g -fPIC -Wreturn-type -Werror=return-type test.cpp -c -o test.o
test.cpp: In function 'int foo()':
test.cpp:26: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
But if the //#define USE_CXX_CLASS line is uncommented, then the warning is treated as an error:
.../gcc-4.2.1/bin/g++ -g -fPIC -Wreturn-type -Werror=return-type test.cpp -c -o test.o
test.cpp: In member function 'std::string SomeClass::GetSomeString()':
test.cpp:18: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
gmake: *** [test.o] Error 1
Yes, one is a non-member function (case #2), and the other is a C++ function (case #1). IMO, that should not matter. I want both conditions treated as an error, and I don't want to add -Werror or -Wall at this point in time (probably will do so later, but that is out of scope of this question).
My sub-questions are:
Is there some GCC switch that I am missing that should work? (No I do not want to use #pragma's.)
Is this a bug that has been addressed in a more recent version of GCC?
For reference, I have already poured through other similar questions already, including the following:
Why does flowing off the end of a non-void function without returning a value not produce a compiler error?
C question: no warning?
Is a return statement mandatory for C++ functions that do not return void?
It has been fixed, it works well with g++ 9.3: both member functions and free functions are treated as error with -Wall -Werror=return-type
I do see an error even w/o the USE_CXX_CLASS flag. i.e. g++ is consistent with the error for both class member functions and non member functions.
g++ (GCC) 4.4.3 20100127 (Red Hat 4.4.3-4)
It seems to me that what you need is a shell script wrapper around gcc.
Name it something like gcc-wrapper and g++-wrapper.
In your Makefile set CC and CXX to the wrappers.
Have the wrapper invoke GCC and pipe its output to another program which will search for your desired warning strings.
Have the search program exit with an error when it finds the warning.