Is this gcc being overly nice and doing what the dev thinks it will do or is clang being overly fussy about something. Am I missing some subtle rule in the standard where clang is actually correct in complaining about this
Or should I use the second bit of code which is basically the how offsetof works
[adrian#localhost ~]$ g++ -Wall -pedantic -ansi a.cc
[adrian#localhost ~]$ a.out
50
[adrian#localhost ~]$ cat a.cc
#include <iostream>
struct Foo
{
char name[50];
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::cout << sizeof(Foo::name) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
[adrian#localhost ~]$ clang++ a.cc
a.cc:10:29: error: invalid use of non-static data member 'name'
std::cout << sizeof(Foo::name) << std::endl;
~~~~~^~~~
1 error generated.
[adrian#localhost ~]$ g++ -Wall -pedantic -ansi b.cc
[adrian#localhost ~]$ a.out
50
[adrian#localhost ~]$ cat b.cc
#include <iostream>
struct Foo
{
char name[50];
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::cout << sizeof(static_cast<Foo*>(0)->name) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
[adrian#localhost ~]$ clang++ b.cc
[adrian#localhost ~]$ a.out
50
I found adding -std=c++11 stops it complaining. GCC is fine
with it in either version.
Modern GCC versions allow this even in -std=c++98 mode. However, older versions, like GCC 3.3.6 of mine, do complain and refuse to compile.
So now I wonder which part of C++98 I am violating with this code.
Wikipedia explicitly states that such a feature was added in C++11, and refers to N2253, which says that the syntax was not considered invalid by the C++98 standard initially, but then intentionally clarified to disallow this (I have no idea how non-static member fields are any different from other variables with regard to their data type). Some time later they decided to make this syntax valid, but not until C++11.
The very same document mentions an ugly workaround, which can also be seen throughout the web:
sizeof(((Class*) 0)->Field)
It looks like simply using 0, NULL or nullptr may trigger compiler warnings for possible dereference of a null pointer (despite the fact that sizeof never evaluates its argument), so an arbitrary non-zero value might be used instead, although it will look like a counter-intuitive “magic constant”. Therefore, in my C++ graceful degradation layer I use:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#define CXX_MODERN 2011
#else
#define CXX_LEGACY 1998
#endif
#ifdef CXX_MODERN
#define CXX_FEATURE_SIZEOF_NONSTATIC
#define CxxSizeOf(TYPE, FIELD) (sizeof TYPE::FIELD)
#else
// Use of `nullptr` may trigger warnings.
#define CxxSizeOf(TYPE, FIELD) (sizeof (reinterpret_cast<const TYPE*>(1234)->FIELD))
#endif
Usage examples:
// On block level:
class SomeHeader {
public:
uint16_t Flags;
static CxxConstExpr size_t FixedSize =
#ifdef CXX_FEATURE_SIZEOF_NONSTATIC
(sizeof Flags)
#else
sizeof(uint16_t)
#endif
;
}; // end class SomeHeader
// Inside a function:
void Foo(void) {
size_t nSize = CxxSizeOf(SomeHeader, Flags);
} // end function Foo(void)
By the way, note the syntax difference for sizeof(Type) and sizeof Expression, as they are formally not the same, even if sizeof(Expression) works — as long as sizeof (Expression) is valid. So, the most correct and portable form would be sizeof(decltype(Expression)), but unfortunately it was made available only in C++11; some compliers have provided typeof(Expression) for a long time, but this never was a standard extension.
Related
struct Foo {
char a[10];
int b;
};
static Foo foo = {.a="bla"};
Compiling the above code gives the following gcc error:
$ gcc -std=gnu++2a test.cpp
C99 designator ‘a’ outside aggregate initializer
I thought that c-string designators in initializer list like these are ok in C++20? What am I missing? I am using gcc version 10.
This is a known bug with GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Unfortunately, you will have to either not use designated initializers or use a different initializer for the array:
static Foo foo = {"bla"};
static Foo foo = {.a={'b', 'l', 'a', 0}};
I got the same error and I dealt with mv my.cpp my.c
You also can find answer in this link:
https://pcbartists.com/firmware/esp32-firmware/designator-outside-aggregate-initializer-solved/
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C"
{
#endif
// C code goes here
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
I use strncpy (from <cstring>), for example:
strncpy(foo.str, "hello", sizeof(foo_t::str));
It seems to be optimized away, therefore generating the same assembly as normal approach in newer GCC (11.3^) and the same as using Artyer solution (the accepted one) of using char array.
Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/9G7b6PT9b
However, the solution might cause warning: missing initializer for member 'foo_t::str' [-Wmissing-field-initializers] if you have the -Wextra warnings enable, but you can use -Wno-missing-field-initializers to exclude it.
By the way, with stucts like that you always have to remember the space is limited, and in many cases you might want leave trailing zero for string end. Using strncpy you can force that by adding:
foo.str[sizeof(foo_t::str) - 1] = 0;
When compiling this snippet of code (example code)
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <chrono>
#ifndef USE_DEFINE
class ClassA
{
public:
inline static constexpr uint8_t A = 0;
};
#else
#define A 0
#endif
int main()
{
srand(std::chrono::system_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count());
uint8_t a = rand() % 255;
#ifndef USE_DEFINE
if(a < ClassA::A)
#else
if(a < A)
#endif
{
std::cout << "Shouldn't even compile using `-Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wfatal-errors -Wpedantic` flags." << std::endl;
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
with GCC 7.5 and the following flags
g++ -std=gnu++17 -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -Wfatal-errors -Werror -o test main.cc
i get the following warning/error (due to -Werror):
main.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
main.cc:40:7: error: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
40 | if(a < ClassA::A)
Which seems ok to me due to the fact that i'm trying to check if an uint8_t is less than 0. The same happens when defining USE_DEFINE. Both expressions are not constant due to the changing value of a so it could be checked if the type limits allow this kind of comparison to evaluate as true AND false.
Doing the same with a newer compiler (GCC 10.1.0 / CLang 10.0.1) i don't get this warning anymore when using the inline static constexpr uint8_t A = 0 of ClassA. When i use USE_DEFINE the same happens.
Is this behaviour of GCC/Clang erroneous or is this some sideeffect caused by attributes of const/constexpr?
The GCC-Manual says (for GCC 6.4/7.5 as well as 10):
-Wtype-limits
Warn if a comparison is always true or always false due to the limited range of the data type, but do not warn for constant expressions. For example, warn if an unsigned variable is compared against zero with < or >=. This warning is also enabled by -Wextra.
As far as i can see if(a < ClassA::A) isn't a constant expression even though i'm using the constexpr keyword. The same happens when using const instead of constexpr. What does lead to this behaviour?
I'm trying to learn new features/gimmicks of c++17, but then I got to std::byte and for some unknown reason I can't seem to be able to compile even most basic "hello world" type program with the type.
entire program:
#include <cstddef>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
std::byte byte;
return 0;
}
compilation command:
g++ ./main.cpp
But the output is always:
./main.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
./main.cpp:4:10: error: ‘byte’ is not a member of ‘std’
std::byte byte;
I work on Ubuntu 18.04 with gcc 7.4.0. I have checked "/usr/include/c++/7.4.0/" and header file cstddef is there and byte seems to be defined.
I have also tried to use clang:
clang++ ./main.cpp
But the result was same. At this point I can only think that cstddef is corrupted/bugged. Are there any solutions to this?
As πάντα ῥεῖ pointed out in comment I was missing c++17 compile flag. Right compilation command:
g++ -std=c++17 ./main.cpp
If you use clang 5.0 (even with -std=c++17 flag) the same error occur.
In that case, to solve this you need to upgrade to clang 6.
A temporay and quick workaround is possible (but not recommanded since it plays with std namespace), it could be something like:
#if defined(__clang__) && __cplusplus >= 201703L && __clang_major__ < 6
// This is a minimal workaround for clang 5.0 with missing std::byte type
namespace std {
enum class byte : unsigned char {};
}
#endif
I am compiling the code on solaris 5.11.
G++ version is 4.8.2.
The same code works on Ubuntu but gives the error: 'to_string() was not declared in this scope' on solaris.
I went through many links and tried the following things:
Adding 'std::' before to_string(). This gives error - 'to_string is not a member of std'
Added 'std=c++11' or 'std=c++0x' while compilation.
Both the above things do not work.
Is there anything related to Solaris?
The actual code was very huge. So simulating the error in sample code below.
temp.cpp
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
string str;
int i = 10;
str = "john age is " + to_string(i);
cout << str;
return 0;
}
command: g++ temp.cpp -std=c++0x -o temp
For GCC 4.8.2 the to_string functions are defined conditionally, according to the following:
#if ((__cplusplus >= 201103L) && defined(_GLIBCXX_USE_C99) \
&& !defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF))
The GLIBCXX_USE_C99 macro depends on a large number of C99 functions being supported by the OS, so presumably the necessary C99 library functions were not found when building GCC on Solaris. So the to_string definitions are absent.
In current versions of GCC the condition is more fine-grained, and checks whether the C99 functions are defined in C++98 mode and C++11, so that the absence of any C99 function doesn't disable everything:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
//...
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO
It's not possible to backport these improvements to GCC 4.8, so you might need to update to at least GCC 6.
compile using std=c++11 as below
g++ -std=c++11 filename.cc
Note : your compiler must support c++11
Is it possible to see what is going on behind gcc and g++ compilation process?
I have the following program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
size_t sym1 = 100;
size_t *addr = &sym1;
size_t *arr = (size_t*)((size_t)&arr + (size_t)&addr);
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
(void) argc;
(void) argv;
printf("libtest: addr of main(): %p\n", &main);
printf("libtest: addr of arr: %p\n", &arr);
while(1);
return 0;
}
Why is it possible to produce the binary without error with g++ while there is an error using gcc?
I'm looking for a method to trace what makes them behave differently.
# gcc test.c -o test_app
test.c:7:1: error: initializer element is not constant
# g++ test.c -o test_app
I think the reason can be in fact that gcc uses cc1 as a compiler and g++ uses cc1plus.
Is there a way to make more precise output of what actually has been done?
I've tried to use -v flag but the output is quite similar. Are there different flags passed to linker?
What is the easiest way to compare two compilation procedures and find the difference in them?
In this case, gcc produces nothing because your program is not valid C. As the compiler explains, the initializer element (expression used to initialize the global variable arr) is not constant.
C requires initialization expressions to be compile-time constants, so that the contents of local variables can be placed in the data segment of the executable. This cannot be done for arr because the addresses of variables involved are not known until link time and their sum cannot be trivially filled in by the dynamic linker, as is the case for addr1. C++ allows this, so g++ generates initialization code that evaluates the non-constant expressions and stores them in global variables. This code is executed before invocation of main().
Executables cc1 and cc1plus are internal details of the implementation of the compiler, and as such irrelevant to the observed behavior. The relevant fact is that gcc expects valid C code as its input, and g++ expects valid C++ code. The code you provided is valid C++, but not valid C, which is why g++ compiles it and gcc doesn't.
There is a slightly more interesting question lurking here. Consider the following test cases:
#include <stdint.h>
#if TEST==1
void *p=(void *)(unsigned short)&p;
#elif TEST==2
void *p=(void *)(uintptr_t)&p;
#elif TEST==3
void *p=(void *)(1*(uintptr_t)&p);
#elif TEST==4
void *p=(void *)(2*(uintptr_t)&p);
#endif
gcc (even with the very conservative flags -ansi -pedantic-errors) rejects test 1 but accepts test 2, and accepts test 3 but rejects test 4.
From this I conclude that some operations that are easily optimized away (like casting to an object of the same size, or multiplying by 1) get eliminated before the check for whether the initializer is a constant expression.
So gcc might be accepting a few things that it should reject according to the C standard. But when you make them slightly more complicated (like adding the result of a cast to the result of another cast - what useful value can possibly result from adding two addresses anyway?) it notices the problem and rejects the expression.