On 3/24/22 15:56, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:02:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/24/22 11:49, Marek Polacek wrote:
I started looking into this PR because in GCC 4.9 we were able to
detect the invalid

    struct alignas(void) S{};

but I broke it in r210262.

It's ill-formed code in C++:
[dcl.align]/3: "An alignment-specifier of the form alignas(type-id) has
the same effect as alignas(alignof(type-id))", and [expr.align]/1:
"The operand shall be a type-id representing a complete object type,
or an array thereof, or a reference to one of those types." and void
is not a complete type.

It's also invalid in C:
6.7.5: _Alignas(type-name) is equivalent to _Alignas(_Alignof(type-name))
6.5.3.4: "The _Alignof operator shall not be applied to a function type
or an incomplete type."

We have a GNU extension whereby we treat sizeof(void) as 1, but I assume
it doesn't apply to alignof, so I'd like to reject it in C too.

That makes sense to me in principle, but we've allowed it since the
beginning of version control, back when c_alignof was a separate function.
Changing that seems questionable for a regression fix.

Ok, that makes sense.  How about rejecting alignof(void) in C++ only
now (where it is a regression), and maybe come back to this in GCC 13 for C?

I'd probably just leave it alone for C and __alignof.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?

-- >8 --
I started looking into this PR because in GCC 4.9 we were able to
detect the invalid

   struct alignas(void) S{};

but I broke it in r210262.

It's ill-formed code in C++:
[dcl.align]/3: "An alignment-specifier of the form alignas(type-id) has
the same effect as alignas(alignof(type-id))", and [expr.align]/1:
"The operand shall be a type-id representing a complete object type,
or an array thereof, or a reference to one of those types." and void
is not a complete type.

It's also invalid in C:
6.7.5: _Alignas(type-name) is equivalent to _Alignas(_Alignof(type-name))
6.5.3.4: "The _Alignof operator shall not be applied to a function type
or an incomplete type."

We have a GNU extension whereby we treat sizeof(void) as 1, but I assume
it doesn't apply to alignof, so I'd like to reject it in C too, but it's
probably not a good time to do so in stage4.

(We still say "invalid application of '__alignof__'" rather than
'alignas' but I felt that fixing that may not be suitable as part of this
patch.)

        PR c++/104944

gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:

        * c-common.cc (c_sizeof_or_alignof_type): Do not allow alignof(void)
        in C++.

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

        * typeck.cc (cxx_alignas_expr): Call cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_type with
        complain == true.

This hunk is OK. But let's put the diagnostic in cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_type, where it can depend on std_alignof.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C: New test.
---
  gcc/c-family/c-common.cc               | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
  gcc/cp/typeck.cc                       | 14 ++++++++------
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C

diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
index d034837bb5b..f99717f540b 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
@@ -3849,7 +3849,7 @@ c_common_get_alias_set (tree t)
     the IS_SIZEOF parameter indicates which operator is being applied.
     The COMPLAIN flag controls whether we should diagnose possibly
     ill-formed constructs or not.  LOC is the location of the SIZEOF or
-   TYPEOF operator.  If MIN_ALIGNOF, the least alignment required for
+   ALIGNOF operator.  If MIN_ALIGNOF, the least alignment required for
     a type in any context should be returned, rather than the normal
     alignment for that type.  */
@@ -3891,10 +3891,20 @@ c_sizeof_or_alignof_type (location_t loc,
      }
    else if (type_code == VOID_TYPE || type_code == ERROR_MARK)
      {
-      if (type_code == VOID_TYPE
-         && complain && warn_pointer_arith)
-       pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
-                "invalid application of %qs to a void type", op_name);
+      if (type_code == VOID_TYPE && complain)
+       {
+         /* sizeof(void) is a GNU extension.  */
+         if (is_sizeof || !c_dialect_cxx ())
+           pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
+                    "invalid application of %qs to a void type", op_name);
+         /* But alignof(void) is not (in C++).  */
+         else
+           {
+             error_at (loc, "invalid application of %qs to a void type",
+                       op_name);
+             return error_mark_node;
+           }
+       }
        else if (!complain)
          return error_mark_node;
        value = size_one_node;
diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
index 516fa574ef6..96653c4f96e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
@@ -1873,9 +1873,9 @@ compparms (const_tree parms1, const_tree parms2)
  }
-/* Process a sizeof or alignof expression where the operand is a
-   type. STD_ALIGNOF indicates whether an alignof has C++11 (minimum alignment)
-   or GNU (preferred alignment) semantics; it is ignored if op is
+/* Process a sizeof or alignof expression where the operand is a type.
+   STD_ALIGNOF indicates whether an alignof has C++11 (minimum alignment)
+   or GNU (preferred alignment) semantics; it is ignored if OP is
     SIZEOF_EXPR.  */
tree
@@ -2132,11 +2132,13 @@ cxx_alignas_expr (tree e)
      /* [dcl.align]/3:
When the alignment-specifier is of the form
-          alignas(type-id ), it shall have the same effect as
-          alignas(alignof(type-id )).  */
+          alignas(type-id), it shall have the same effect as
+          alignas(alignof(type-id)).  */
return cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_type (input_location,
-                                      e, ALIGNOF_EXPR, true, false);
+                                      e, ALIGNOF_EXPR,
+                                      /*std_alignof=*/true,
+                                      /*complain=*/true);
/* If we reach this point, it means the alignas expression if of
       the form "alignas(assignment-expression)", so we should follow
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C 
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f04f27927e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas20.C
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+// PR c++/104944
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct inc;
+
+struct alignas(inc) S1 { }; // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+struct alignas(void) S2 { }; // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+
+template <typename T>
+struct alignas(T) S4 {}; // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+
+template <typename T>
+struct alignas(T) S5 {}; // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+
+S4<void> s1;
+S5<inc> s2;
+
+void
+g ()
+{
+  auto s1 = alignof(void); // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+  auto s2 = alignof(const void); // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+  auto s3 = alignof(inc); // { dg-error "invalid application" }
+}

base-commit: 346ab5a54a831ad9c78afcbd8dfe98e0e07e3070

Reply via email to