When building on a platform with an older C++ compiler, I noticed unexpected behavior with code that worked fine elsewhere. I'm not sure whether this indicates a bug in older compilers, or some change in the standard, but I have been explicitly building with C++11.
In particular, the older compiler seems to use a temporary for a * const&
when I wouldn't expect it to, and that temporary leads to a SIGSEGV when its stack frame gets cleaned up and overwritten.
Here is my best effort at distilling a MWE from the original code. My problem revolves around the constructor of class C
:
#include <stdio.h>
struct A {
int* i;
};
class B {
public:
int* const& i_ptr_const_ref; // normally not public
B(int* const& i_ptr) : i_ptr_const_ref(i_ptr) {}
operator int* const& (void) const { return i_ptr_const_ref; }
};
int null_b = { 0 };
int* null_b_ptr = &null_b;
int* const& null_b_ptr_const_ref = null_b_ptr;
class C {
public:
B b;
// C(const A* a_ptr) : b(a_ptr ? a_ptr->i : null_b_ptr_const_ref) {} // this works
C(A* a_ptr) : b(a_ptr ? a_ptr->i : null_b_ptr_const_ref) {} // this fails
// C(A* a_ptr) : b(a_ptr ? (int* const&) a_ptr->i : null_b_ptr_const_ref) {} // this works
// C(A* a_ptr) : b(a_ptr->i) {} // this works
};
int main(void) {
A a;
A* a_ptr = &a;
a_ptr->i = (int*) 42;
C c(a_ptr);
printf("c.b.i_ptr_const_ref = %p\n", (void*) c.b.i_ptr_const_ref);
printf("c.b= %p\n", (void*) c.b);
printf("a_ptr->i= %p\n", (void*) a_ptr->i);
return 0;
}
The values that I print out should all match, but on GCC compilers prior to 5.1 and ICC compilers prior to 18 (I understand that Intel prides itself on "bug-for-bug" compatibility with other compilers), the middle one shows a stack address instead of the expected value. All versions of Clang and ELLCC compilers that I was able to try behave correctly.
The uncommented C
constructor is the one I want to use, but it doesn't work correctly. I get the expected result in the MWE if I make the A* a_ptr
parameter const, but in the larger code base I can't do that. I also get the expected result if I don't use a ?:
in the initializer, or if I explicitly cast a_ptr->i
in the initializer as int* const&
, but I don't understand why I should have to.
I would have thought that initializing an int* const&
with an int*
would be fine, but my best guess is that the ?:
somehow confused the compiler. Can anybody help me understand whether the older GCC and ICC compilers are incorrect here, or whether there is something about the language that I'm misunderstanding?