On Fri, 19 May 2023, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote: > Thanks Joseph! > > Revised version attached. Ok?
The C front-end changes and tests are OK. > But I wonder whether we generally need to do something > about > > sizeof *x > > when x is NULL or not initialized. This is quite commonly > used in C code and if the type is not of variable size, > it is also unproblematic. So the UB for variable size is > unfortunate and certainly also affects existing code in > the wild. In practice it does not seem to cause > problems because there is no lvalue conversion and this > then seems to work. Maybe we document this as an > extension? (and make sure in the C FE that it > works) This would also make this idiom valid: There's certainly a tricky question of what exactly it means to evaluate *x as far as producing an lvalue but without converting it to an rvalue - but right now the C standard wording on unary '*' is clear that "if it points to an object, the result is an lvalue designating the object" and "If an invalid value has been assigned to the pointer, the behavior of the unary * operator is undefined.", i.e. it's the evaluation as far as producing an lvalue that produces undefined behavior, rather than the lvalue conversion (that doesn't happen in sizeof) that does so. And indeed we probably would be able to define semantics that avoid UB if desired. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
