Given:
int main() {
union U { int i; char c; };
U u{.i=1};
char c1 = (char&)u;
char c2 = (char&)u.i;
char c3 = u.c;
return c1 + c2 + c3;
}
c1, c2, and c3 are obviously equivalent here. If there's wording to suggest otherwise, that's a wording defect.
And yet ironically:
char *p = &u.c;
char *q = reinterpret_cast<char*>(&u);
assert(p == q); // succeeds
u.b = true;
+*p; // undefined behavior
+*q; // OK
…I think.
> I'm a bit confused by the OptBool examples from P2641
> (https://wg21.link/p2641#introduction). The paper claims that both are
> free from undefined behavior.
>
> Reduced case #1:
>
> union {
> bool b = true;
> char c;
> } u;
> +u.c;
>
> This reads from an inactive union member of type 'char'. The paper says
> that this is OK because of [basic.lval]/11.3, but I don't see how it
> applies here: we're not accessing a 'bool' through a glvalue of type
> 'char', we're accessing a distinct 'char' object outside its lifetime,
> which is undefined per [basic.life]/7.1.
>
> Reduced case #2:
>
> char c;
> new(&c) bool(true);
> +c; // #1
> +(bool&)c; // #2
>
> Creating a 'bool' in the storage associated with a 'char' ends the
> lifetime of the latter ([basic.life]/1.5), meaning #1 once again tries
> to access an object outside its lifetime. #2 does the same except
> through a 'bool' glvalue, additionally running afoul of [basic.lval]/11.
>
> Is there a mistake in the paper, or am I misunderstanding something?
Your analysis is correct, I've pointed at the same things in Core reflector half a year ago, and got no reaction from the authors. Not sure what does it mean. 🌚
--
Std-Discussion mailing list
Std-Discussion@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
Std-Discussion mailing list
Std-Discussion@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion