I have a macro that I use across the board for freeing ram. I'd like to
clean up my code so I don't get these warnings.
#define sfree(x) _internal_sfree ((void **)&x)
#define _internal_sfree (x) ({ if(x && *x) { free(*x); *x=NULL; } })
void main() {
char *x = (char *) malloc(10);
int *y = (int *) malloc(10);
sfree(x);
sfree(y);
}
results in:
warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing
rules
Aug 24 '07
28  2288 
jacob navia wrote, On 25/08/07 21:16:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>>
I would think that an implementation worth its salt would provide a
warning level at which it did issue a diagnostic for void main(). Are
there any major implementations which cannot be coerced into doing so?
I added a warning for
void main(void)
{
}
Good :-)
since lcc-win32 got into an obscure bug...
C99 mandates that main should return zero even if the programmer
doesn't explicitly write a return statement.
If you declare main as a void function however,
the compiler would try to make a void function return zero
as result!!!
A user warned me about this: the compiler crashed when it
saw
void main(void)
{}
You could have claimed it was not a bug because it did not affect
conformance to the C standard. You are explicitly allowed to fail to
compile a program that unconditionally invokes undefined behaviour, and
crashing counts.
I fixed it by ignoring the void statement. And added a
warning with a higher warning level.
Shucks. Still, even an obsolete compiler that crashes on void main() is
another reason not to use it :-)
--
Flash Gordon
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:38:27 +0200 (CEST), Dave Stafford
<in*****@in.val idwrote:
>I have a macro that I use across the board for freeing ram. I'd like to
clean up my code so I don't get these warnings.
#define sfree(x) _internal_sfree ((void **)&x)
>#define _internal_sfree (x) ({ if(x && *x) { free(*x); *x=NULL; } })
There is no guarantee that casting &y to void** and then dereferencing
it will produce the void* containing the original value of y that you
want. Consider the case below where y is a int* and let sizeof
(void*) be 8 while all other pointers are 4.
There is even no guarantee that the value &x is properly aligned for a
void** value.
>
void main() {
char *x = (char *) malloc(10);
int *y = (int *) malloc(10);
sfree(x);
sfree(y);
}
results in:
warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing
rules
Remove del for email
In article <fa**********@c hessie.cirr.com >, Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@otaku.fr eeshell.orgwrit es
>[comp.lang.c] Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:
>Ian Collins said:
>>If you didn't get a warning for this, crank up the warning level!
>Whilst it's wrong (except on some freestanding implementations ), it
isn't a syntax error or a constraint violation. Implementations need
not diagnose it (although some choose to do so).
I would think that an implementation worth its salt would provide a
warning level at which it did issue a diagnostic for void main(). Are
there any major implementations which cannot be coerced into doing so?
Yes, quite a few.
Most embedded cross compilers do not and should not.
In fact it is more useful if they give a warning to
int main()
as there is nothing to return to.
However I agree that in the hosted world a warning should be given.
These days I suspect the majority of C use is in the embedded world.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Barry Schwarz wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:38:27 +0200 (CEST), Dave Stafford
<in*****@in.val idwrote:
>I have a macro that I use across the board for freeing ram. I'd like to
clean up my code so I don't get these warnings.
#define sfree(x) _internal_sfree ((void **)&x)
>#define _internal_sfree (x) ({ if(x && *x) { free(*x); *x=NULL; } })
There is no guarantee that casting &y to void** and then dereferencing
it will produce the void* containing the original value of y that you
want. Consider the case below where y is a int* and let sizeof
(void*) be 8 while all other pointers are 4.
Such an implementation would not be conforming AFAIK. sizeof(void *) ==
sizeof(char *).
There is even no guarantee that the value &x is properly aligned for a
void** value.
Values do not have alignment. This is why the following code works even though
shorts may have alignments that longs may not:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
short value = 10;
long lval = (long) value;
printf("%d\n",l val); /* Or should it be %ld? */
return 0;
}
Phil
--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <fa**********@c hessie.cirr.com >, Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@otaku.fr eeshell.orgwrit es
>[comp.lang.c] Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:
>>Ian Collins said:
>>>If you didn't get a warning for this, crank up the warning level!
>>Whilst it's wrong (except on some freestanding implementations ), it
isn't a syntax error or a constraint violation. Implementations need
not diagnose it (although some choose to do so).
I would think that an implementation worth its salt would provide a
warning level at which it did issue a diagnostic for void main(). Are
there any major implementations which cannot be coerced into doing so?
Yes, quite a few.
Most embedded cross compilers do not and should not.
In fact it is more useful if they give a warning to
int main()
as there is nothing to return to.
However I agree that in the hosted world a warning should be given.
These days I suspect the majority of C use is in the embedded world.
That depends on how you define "the majority", I guess. I accept that your
statement may be correct for usage of C to get work done. But for learners of C,
I think the majority would be using hosted implementations on ordinary PCs.
Besides, I'm working on an embedded platform at the moment and the
implementation is hosted, not freestanding. (You just have to be careful not to
use any of the standard library calls (of which printf() is one) which may swell
your binary beyond 64Kb...)
Phil
--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:49:06 +0100, Philip Potter
<pg*@see.sig.in validwrote:
>Barry Schwarz wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:38:27 +0200 (CEST), Dave Stafford
<in*****@in.va lidwrote:
>>I have a macro that I use across the board for freeing ram. I'd like to
clean up my code so I don't get these warnings.
#define sfree(x) _internal_sfree ((void **)&x)
>>#define _internal_sfree (x) ({ if(x && *x) { free(*x); *x=NULL; } })
There is no guarantee that casting &y to void** and then dereferencing
it will produce the void* containing the original value of y that you
want. Consider the case below where y is a int* and let sizeof
(void*) be 8 while all other pointers are 4.
Such an implementation would not be conforming AFAIK. sizeof(void *) ==
sizeof(char *).
True. Let sizeof(void*) and sizeof(char*) be 8 while others are 4 and
the point remains valid.
>
>There is even no guarantee that the value &x is properly aligned for a
void** value.
Values do not have alignment. This is why the following code works even though
shorts may have alignments that longs may not:
Values assigned to pointers must satisfy alignment issues. &x is an
expression with type pointer to something. From 6.3.2.3-7:
"A pointer to an object or incomplete type may be converted to a
pointer to a different object or incomplete type. If the resulting
pointer is not correctly aligned for the pointed-to type, the behavior
is undefined."
>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
short value = 10;
long lval = (long) value;
All you have done here is cast an integer value to another integer
value of greater rank. This has nothing to do with alignment.
If you had said
long lval = *(long*)&value;
you would be addressing the issue at hand and in fact invoking
undefined behavior on all systems where sizeof(long)>si zeof(short).
The UB is the result not only of possible alignment issues but also of
accessing bytes beyond the end of value.
printf("%d\n",l val); /* Or should it be %ld? */
Yes.
return 0;
}
Remove del for email
In article <+U************ **@phaedsys.dem on.co.uk>
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys .demon.co.ukwro te:
>Most embedded cross compilers do not [warn about "void main"]
That may well be the case, although I cannot speak for "most" or even
"many".
>and should not.
Here, I disagree: "should" or "should not" is too strong, and I think
I disagree even more strongly with this:
>In fact it is more useful if they give a warning to
int main()
as there is nothing to return to.
Often enough, there *is* something to return to: the assembly code
that calls the startup routine. This may well just reboot, if that
suffices for an error recovery method.
Since I, in embedded environments, tend to name my "C startup
routine" start() (not main()), it does not affect me one way or
another what any given compiler thinks of the symbol "main". I
recommend this practice to all embedded-systems writers: do not
use main() at all, unless it will have return type "int" and the
two Standard C arguments.
>However I agree that in the hosted world a warning should be given.
These days I suspect the majority of C use is in the embedded world.
Perhaps. Of course, on vxWorks 6.x, RTPs are entered at main()
with the two Standard C arguments (plus, admittedly, several more
that one can use or ignore as desired -- specifically "char **envp",
a la Unix-like systems, and "void *aux", which is ... difficult to
describe) and the return value from main() is made available to
the task that collects the RTP's exit status.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
In article <fb********@new s1.newsguy.com> , Chris Torek
<no****@torek.n etwrites
>In article <+U************ **@phaedsys.dem on.co.uk>
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys .demon.co.ukwro te:
>>Most embedded cross compilers do not [warn about "void main"]
That may well be the case, although I cannot speak for "most" or even
"many".
>>and should not.
Here, I disagree: "should" or "should not" is too strong, and I think
I disagree even more strongly with this:
Then we shall have to disagree.
>>In fact it is more useful if they give a warning to
int main()
as there is nothing to return to.
Often enough, there *is* something to return to: the assembly code
that calls the startup routine. This may well just reboot, if that
suffices for an error recovery method.
All the asm start up code I have seen is a linear piece of code whose
final instruction is something like "jmp _main" There is no return
point.
More to the point return statement in main will have nothing to return
to. It will be completely undefined (unless there is an OS)
Despite what the embedded OS vendors will have you believe the use of an
OR or RTOS in embedded systems is still quite uncommon.
So where is this "return" supposed to go? Having a return that does
something indeterminate is dangerous in many embedded systems.
Therefore there should be no return.
If it gets that far wrong you need a re-boot or of course an infinite
lop and let the watchdog take over.
Doing a return from many is just dangerous as the program exits into the
ether....
>Since I, in embedded environments, tend to name my "C startup
routine" start() (not main()), it does not affect me one way or
another what any given compiler thinks of the symbol "main". I
recommend this practice to all embedded-systems writers: do not
use main() at all, unless it will have return type "int" and the
two Standard C arguments.
Fair enough. However many (most?) of the embedded debug tools look for
"main" as a start point so often you get no choice.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
All the asm start up code I have seen is a linear piece of code
whose final instruction is something like "jmp _main" There is
no return point.
Sounds as if you have been stuck with poor systems. Everything I
have built, or designed, called main (or the appropriate
equivalent), and either rebooted or halted if there was no
controlling shell to return to. Before any halt they would emit an
alerting message if the hardware permitted.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Sony Antony |
last post by:
I have the following simple program in Solaris Forte compiler 5.4
producing the warning. Though it produces the warning, it works fine
as expected.
This has been compiling fine without any warnings in the older 5.1
compiler. Since the latest compiler produces a warning, it makes me
suspecious about my own code. I still cannot find any problems with it
though.
It essentially produces a warning whenever a copy constructor of a
class with...
|
by: Matthew Del Buono |
last post by:
Don't try to solve the problem. I've found a way -- around or fixing it. I'm
just curious as to whether this is Microsoft's problem in their compiler or
if there's a standard saying this is to be true (not necessarily an internal
compiler error, but still an error)
This may just a bit OT, but I decided to post it here instead of Microsoft
because my question is more directed towards standards...
Of course, any other day I would have...
|
by: Hafeez |
last post by:
I am having real trouble compiling this code
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~vganti/birchcode/codeHier/AttrProj.tgz
The attachment shows errors when compiled using the current version of
g++ in a i386-pc-solaris2.9.
Seeing reference to gcc-2.7.2 in the Makefile of the code, I
downloaded it and compiled in my home directory. Then changed the
referenes of LIBDIR and INCLUDES to
this installation .and ran with g++ for 2.7.2 then there are still...
|
by: junky_fellow |
last post by:
Consider the following piece of code:
struct junk {
int i_val;
int i_val1;
char c_val;
};
int main(void)
{
|
by: Bob |
last post by:
Hi,
The compiler gives Warning 96 Variable 'cmdSource' is used before it has
been assigned a value. A null reference exception could result at runtime.
Dim cmdSource as SQlClient.SQLDataReader
Try
Set up the database read and do it.
Catch ex as system.exception
exception stuff here
Finally
| | |
by: Charles Sullivan |
last post by:
I have a program written in C under Linux (gcc) which a user has
ported to run under AT&T SysV R4.
He sent me a copy of his makelog which displays a large number
of compiler warnings similar to this:
warning: semantics of ">>" change in ANSI C; use explicit cast
The statement to which this applies is:
xuc = ((uc & 0xF0 ) >4);
|
by: Charles Sullivan |
last post by:
I have a number of functions, e.g.:
int funct1( int arg1, int arg2, int arg3 );
int funct2( int arg1, int arg2, int arg3 );
int funct3( int arg1, int arg2, int arg3 );
that are called via pointers in a table, with the
same parameters regardless of the particular
function.
In some of the functions, one or more of the
|
by: zeppe |
last post by:
Hi all,
I've a problem. The code that follows creates a warning in both gcc and
visual c++. However, I think it's correct: basically, there is a
function that return an object of a derived class, that's bounded to a
base class reference to delay the destruction of the actual object to
the end of the reference scope. Actually, I don't use the reference: the
code that matters is in the destructor, and I want it to be executed at
the end...
|
by: Ivan Vecerina |
last post by:
Here's a relatively simple code snippet:
#include <memory>
class Base {
public:
Base();
virtual ~Base();
virtual void f(int a, char const* name);
|
by: gil |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm trying to find the best way to work with compiler warnings. I'd
like to remove *all* warnings from the code, and playing around with
the warning level, I've noticed that compiling with /W3 I get warnings
that with /W4 are shown as remarks, e.g.:
warning #177: variable "Foo" was declared but never referenced
....is displayed as a "remark #177" with /W4. That doesn't fit the
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| | |
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
