diff mbox

[C++] PR 51316

Message ID 4EFBAF5B.8050700@oracle.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Paolo Carlini Dec. 29, 2011, 12:07 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

I think the resolution of core/930 and C++11 itself are pretty clear: 
alignof of an array of unknown bound is fine, provided the element type 
is complete of course.

Tested x86_64-linux.

Thanks,
Paolo.

//////////////////////
/c-family
2011-12-29  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	PR c++/51316
	* c-common.c (c_sizeof_or_alignof_type): In C++ allow for alignof
	of array types with an unknown bound.

/testsuite
2011-12-29  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	PR c++/51316
	* g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof4.C: New.

Comments

Jason Merrill Dec. 30, 2011, 5:27 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 12/28/2011 07:07 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I think the resolution of core/930 and C++11 itself are pretty clear:
> alignof of an array of unknown bound is fine, provided the element type
> is complete of course.

I think it makes sense for this change to apply to C as well, on the 
same principle that an array of unknown bound does have known alignment. 
  C maintainers?

Jason
Paolo Carlini Dec. 30, 2011, 5:34 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi,

On 12/30/2011 06:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 07:07 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I think the resolution of core/930 and C++11 itself are pretty clear:
>> alignof of an array of unknown bound is fine, provided the element type
>> is complete of course.
> I think it makes sense for this change to apply to C as well, on the 
> same principle that an array of unknown bound does have known 
> alignment.  C maintainers?
FWIW, I also think it would make sense but - I'm not sure whether you 
went through the audit trail - Joseph maintained in Comment #3 that C1X 
is pretty clear about a required diagnostics.

Paolo.
Joseph Myers Dec. 30, 2011, 5:38 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:

> On 12/28/2011 07:07 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > I think the resolution of core/930 and C++11 itself are pretty clear:
> > alignof of an array of unknown bound is fine, provided the element type
> > is complete of course.
> 
> I think it makes sense for this change to apply to C as well, on the same
> principle that an array of unknown bound does have known alignment.  C
> maintainers?

In the absence of a resolution of a DR against C11 that allows alignof in 
this case, I think we should continue to disallow it for C.
Jason Merrill Dec. 30, 2011, 5:54 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 12/30/2011 12:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> In the absence of a resolution of a DR against C11 that allows alignof in
> this case, I think we should continue to disallow it for C.

Ah, I didn't realize that C11 had alignof as well.  OK, then.

Jason
diff mbox

Patch

Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof4.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof4.C	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof4.C	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ 
+// PR c++/51316
+// { dg-options "-std=c++0x" }
+
+int main()
+{
+  alignof(int []);
+}
Index: c-family/c-common.c
===================================================================
--- c-family/c-common.c	(revision 182710)
+++ c-family/c-common.c	(working copy)
@@ -4382,13 +4382,22 @@  c_sizeof_or_alignof_type (location_t loc,
         return error_mark_node;
       value = size_one_node;
     }
-  else if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type))
+  else if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type)
+	   && (!c_dialect_cxx () || is_sizeof || type_code != ARRAY_TYPE))
     {
       if (complain)
-	error_at (loc, "invalid application of %qs to incomplete type %qT ",
+	error_at (loc, "invalid application of %qs to incomplete type %qT",
 		  op_name, type);
       return error_mark_node;
     }
+  else if (c_dialect_cxx () && type_code == ARRAY_TYPE
+	   && !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (type)))
+    {
+      if (complain)
+	error_at (loc, "invalid application of %qs to array type %qT of "
+		  "incomplete element type", op_name, type);
+      return error_mark_node;
+    }
   else
     {
       if (is_sizeof)