Use a ctor-initializer for OldSanOpts. Do you need to handle the assignment operator too? A test for move constructors / move assignments would be great, too (not that I expect any problems there).
Do you care that the UBSan checks will still be enabled when CGF.getLangOpts().getGC() != LangOptions::NonGC? We seem to also fail to memcpy non-GC'd fields in that case too =) On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote: > The attached patch disables the bool and enum sanitizers when emitting the > implicitly-defined copy constructor. > > To start with an example: > struct X { X(); X(const X&); }; > struct Y { X x; bool b; }; > if you don't initialize Y::b then try to copy an object of Y type, ubsan > will complain. Technically, with the standard as written, ubsan is correct. > However, this is a useful thing to do -- you may have a discriminator which > decides which elements are not interesting and therefore never initialize > or read them. Secondly, it's a departure from the rules in C, making > well-defined C code have undefined behaviour in C++ (structs are never trap > values, see C99 6.2.6.1p6). Thirdly, it's checked incompletely right now -- > if you make subtle changes (f.e. add an "int i;" member to Y) ubsan will > stop complaining. The semantic I'm implementing is as if the implicit copy > constructor is copying the value representation (the bytes) not the object > representation (the meaning of those bytes). > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
