We didn't explicitly say that type-punning through a union is undefined behavior in C++. Mention that, and that we support it as a GNU extension.
This was reported on LLVM's Discourse (forums) [0]. [0] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/ub-when-type-punning-through-unions/88527/6 gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/invoke.texi (-fstrict-aliasing): Explain that type-punning through a union in C++ is supported as a GNU extension. --- OK? gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index 089328b2e7f1..b438ece40689 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@ -15048,10 +15048,11 @@ int f() @{ @end smallexample The practice of reading from a different union member than the one most recently written to (called ``type-punning'') is common. Even with -@option{-fstrict-aliasing}, type-punning is allowed, provided the memory -is accessed through the union type. So, the code above works as -expected. @xref{Structures unions enumerations and bit-fields -implementation}. However, this code might not: +@option{-fstrict-aliasing}, type-punning is allowed in C, provided the memory +is accessed through the union type. In ISO C++, type-punning through a union +type is undefined behavior, but GCC supports it as an extension. So, the code +above works as expected. @xref{Structures unions enumerations and +bit-fields implementation}. However, this code might not: @smallexample int f() @{ union a_union t; -- 2.51.0
