Is this failing test that adds zero to a null pointer undefined behaviour, a compiler bug, or something else?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
7
down vote

favorite

I wrote a lightweight 'string_view' wrapper for a C++14 project, and with MSVC 2017 it is triggering a static_assert at compile-time, yet the same code at run-time is passes the regular assert. My question is, is this a compiler bug, manifest undefined behaviour, or something else entirely?

Here's the distilled code:

#include <cassert> // assert
#include <cstddef> // size_t

class String_View

 char const* m_data;
 std::size_t m_size;
public:
 constexpr String_View()
 : m_data( nullptr ),
 m_size( 0u )
 

 constexpr char const* begin() const noexcept
 return m_data; 
 constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return m_data + m_size; 
;

void static_foo()

 constexpr String_View sv;

// static_assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this errors
 static_assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
// static_assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this errors


void dynamic_foo()

 String_View const sv;

 assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this compiles & is optimized away
 assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
 assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this compiles & is optimized away

Here's a Compiler Explorer link that I used to replicate the problem: https://godbolt.org/z/TpnE8o

From what I can tell, adding or subtracting 0 from any pointer value is always valid:

• 
  c++ - Is the behavior of subtracting two NULL pointers defined? - Stack Overflow, last blockquote


• 
  Additive operators - cppreference.com, last bullet of the last bullet-list


• 
  libstdc++: string_view Source File, implementation of end() etc.

Workaround:

If I change my end method to the following, the failing static_asserts will pass.

constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return ( m_data == nullptr
 ? m_data
 : m_data + m_size ); 

Tinkering:

I thought maybe the expression m_data + m_size itself is UB, before the fact that m_size == 0 is evaluated. Yet, if I replace the implementation of end with the nonsensical return m_data + 0;, this still generates the two static_assert errors. :-/

c++ c++14 undefined-behavior compiler-bug

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

favorite

I wrote a lightweight 'string_view' wrapper for a C++14 project, and with MSVC 2017 it is triggering a static_assert at compile-time, yet the same code at run-time is passes the regular assert. My question is, is this a compiler bug, manifest undefined behaviour, or something else entirely?

Here's the distilled code:

#include <cassert> // assert
#include <cstddef> // size_t

class String_View

 char const* m_data;
 std::size_t m_size;
public:
 constexpr String_View()
 : m_data( nullptr ),
 m_size( 0u )
 

 constexpr char const* begin() const noexcept
 return m_data; 
 constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return m_data + m_size; 
;

void static_foo()

 constexpr String_View sv;

// static_assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this errors
 static_assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
// static_assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this errors


void dynamic_foo()

 String_View const sv;

 assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this compiles & is optimized away
 assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
 assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this compiles & is optimized away

Here's a Compiler Explorer link that I used to replicate the problem: https://godbolt.org/z/TpnE8o

From what I can tell, adding or subtracting 0 from any pointer value is always valid:

• 
  c++ - Is the behavior of subtracting two NULL pointers defined? - Stack Overflow, last blockquote


• 
  Additive operators - cppreference.com, last bullet of the last bullet-list


• 
  libstdc++: string_view Source File, implementation of end() etc.

Workaround:

If I change my end method to the following, the failing static_asserts will pass.

constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return ( m_data == nullptr
 ? m_data
 : m_data + m_size ); 

Tinkering:

I thought maybe the expression m_data + m_size itself is UB, before the fact that m_size == 0 is evaluated. Yet, if I replace the implementation of end with the nonsensical return m_data + 0;, this still generates the two static_assert errors. :-/

c++ c++14 undefined-behavior compiler-bug

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

add a comment | 

up vote
7
down vote

favorite

up vote
7
down vote

favorite

I wrote a lightweight 'string_view' wrapper for a C++14 project, and with MSVC 2017 it is triggering a static_assert at compile-time, yet the same code at run-time is passes the regular assert. My question is, is this a compiler bug, manifest undefined behaviour, or something else entirely?

Here's the distilled code:

#include <cassert> // assert
#include <cstddef> // size_t

class String_View

 char const* m_data;
 std::size_t m_size;
public:
 constexpr String_View()
 : m_data( nullptr ),
 m_size( 0u )
 

 constexpr char const* begin() const noexcept
 return m_data; 
 constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return m_data + m_size; 
;

void static_foo()

 constexpr String_View sv;

// static_assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this errors
 static_assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
// static_assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this errors


void dynamic_foo()

 String_View const sv;

 assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this compiles & is optimized away
 assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
 assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this compiles & is optimized away

Here's a Compiler Explorer link that I used to replicate the problem: https://godbolt.org/z/TpnE8o

From what I can tell, adding or subtracting 0 from any pointer value is always valid:

• 
  c++ - Is the behavior of subtracting two NULL pointers defined? - Stack Overflow, last blockquote


• 
  Additive operators - cppreference.com, last bullet of the last bullet-list


• 
  libstdc++: string_view Source File, implementation of end() etc.

Workaround:

If I change my end method to the following, the failing static_asserts will pass.

constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return ( m_data == nullptr
 ? m_data
 : m_data + m_size ); 

Tinkering:

I thought maybe the expression m_data + m_size itself is UB, before the fact that m_size == 0 is evaluated. Yet, if I replace the implementation of end with the nonsensical return m_data + 0;, this still generates the two static_assert errors. :-/

c++ c++14 undefined-behavior compiler-bug

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

I wrote a lightweight 'string_view' wrapper for a C++14 project, and with MSVC 2017 it is triggering a static_assert at compile-time, yet the same code at run-time is passes the regular assert. My question is, is this a compiler bug, manifest undefined behaviour, or something else entirely?

Here's the distilled code:

#include <cassert> // assert
#include <cstddef> // size_t

class String_View

 char const* m_data;
 std::size_t m_size;
public:
 constexpr String_View()
 : m_data( nullptr ),
 m_size( 0u )
 

 constexpr char const* begin() const noexcept
 return m_data; 
 constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return m_data + m_size; 
;

void static_foo()

 constexpr String_View sv;

// static_assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this errors
 static_assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
// static_assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this errors


void dynamic_foo()

 String_View const sv;

 assert( sv.begin() == sv.end() ); // this compiles & is optimized away
 assert( sv.begin() == nullptr );
 assert( sv.end() == nullptr ); // this compiles & is optimized away

Here's a Compiler Explorer link that I used to replicate the problem: https://godbolt.org/z/TpnE8o

From what I can tell, adding or subtracting 0 from any pointer value is always valid:

• 
  c++ - Is the behavior of subtracting two NULL pointers defined? - Stack Overflow, last blockquote


• 
  Additive operators - cppreference.com, last bullet of the last bullet-list


• 
  libstdc++: string_view Source File, implementation of end() etc.

Workaround:

If I change my end method to the following, the failing static_asserts will pass.

constexpr char const* end() const noexcept
 return ( m_data == nullptr
 ? m_data
 : m_data + m_size ); 

Tinkering:

I thought maybe the expression m_data + m_size itself is UB, before the fact that m_size == 0 is evaluated. Yet, if I replace the implementation of end with the nonsensical return m_data + 0;, this still generates the two static_assert errors. :-/

c++ c++14 undefined-behavior compiler-bug

c++ c++14 undefined-behavior compiler-bug

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited 43 mins ago

edited 43 mins ago

edited 43 mins ago

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

asked 1 hour ago

Charles L Wilcox

540214

540214

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

I think that this is definitely a bug in the way MSVC evaluates constant expressions, since GCC and Clang have no issues with the code, and the standard is clear that adding 0 to a null pointer yields a null pointer ([expr.add]/7).

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52808357%2fis-this-failing-test-that-adds-zero-to-a-null-pointer-undefined-behaviour-a-com%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

I think that this is definitely a bug in the way MSVC evaluates constant expressions, since GCC and Clang have no issues with the code, and the standard is clear that adding 0 to a null pointer yields a null pointer ([expr.add]/7).

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

I think that this is definitely a bug in the way MSVC evaluates constant expressions, since GCC and Clang have no issues with the code, and the standard is clear that adding 0 to a null pointer yields a null pointer ([expr.add]/7).

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

up vote
5
down vote

I think that this is definitely a bug in the way MSVC evaluates constant expressions, since GCC and Clang have no issues with the code, and the standard is clear that adding 0 to a null pointer yields a null pointer ([expr.add]/7).

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

I think that this is definitely a bug in the way MSVC evaluates constant expressions, since GCC and Clang have no issues with the code, and the standard is clear that adding 0 to a null pointer yields a null pointer ([expr.add]/7).

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

answered 1 hour ago

Brian

61.3k791175

61.3k791175

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52808357%2fis-this-failing-test-that-adds-zero-to-a-null-pointer-undefined-behaviour-a-com%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email