This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/9] Use unsigned as base type for some enums
>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> writes:
Simon> Can you give an example of how the error manifests itself (I'm not really
Simon> familiar with -fsanitize=undefined). Is the error reported at compile-time
Simon> or run-time? I'm not able to make a synthetic standalone example to reproduce
Simon> the error.
You will get an error at runtime, and with the flags added by the last
patch in the series, a crash.
The error looks somewhat like the error from the expression dumping
patch:
runtime error: load of value 2887952, which is not a valid value for type 'exp_opcode'
(I don't have an exact error handy, this was just taken from the other
patch.)
Simon> In any case, that LGTM if that makes the compiler happy. If the error reported
Simon> by -fsanitize=undefined is at run-time, could we add a static assert in there
Simon> to make sure the underlying types of types used with DEF_ENUM_FLAGS_TYPE are
Simon> unsigned, to get a compilation error?
With the final patch, any UB will cause gdb to crash (in development
mode), presumably leading to a test suite failure. I think it isn't
necessary to require unsigned as the underlying type -- any type will
do. However I don't know how to assert that.
Tom