Compiler: Clarification of known bugs from SDOWP

Mads Ronn Kramer said:

SDSCM00052849: Compiler and assembler disagree on format for IT instruction – Can you clarify this error message, seems a bit broad. When and how do the compiler and the assembler disagree?  

Please see the forum thread where this issue is first reported.

Mads Ronn Kramer said:

SDSCM00040936: Structure is not initialized correctly when using -o2 or -o3 optimization – Could you specify the problem and the consequences ?

There must be some kind of error.  I cannot find any entry with this identifier.

For the rest of them ... I have reached out to experts who know the issue better than me.  Expect responses over the next few days.

Thanks and regards,

-George

CODEGEN-4124

In the sample code, A::I is a private typedef to the int type.

The constructs:

1) template<A::I> struct A::Q { };

2) template<A::I> struct R { };

Use A::I before the parser might understand that the object being declared is a member of (1) or friend of (2) A. Because the parser does not wait until it has more information and emits an error, it is in violation of the C++ standard, which specifically allows both (1) and (2).

CODEGEN-3964

Core issues are issues which are filed against the C++ standard itself, intending to fix ambiguous language or forbid constructs which may cause issues.

In particular, core issue 1467 involves an ambiguous case where an integer, which can be initialized via:

int x{5};

And a std::initializer_list<char> of one element, which can be used in a function call like the following:

foo({5});

Become ambiguous when overloaded function resolution is being performed.

void foo(int x); // #1

void foo(std::initializer_list<char> x); // #2

foo({5}); // Calls #1 or #2?

Does {5} get interpreted as int{5} or std::initialize_list<char>{5}? The standard itself was ambiguous, and was fixed after the initial release.

If your code does not have overloaded functions involving initializer lists, you will not see the symptoms of CODEGEN-3964.

CODEGEN-3946

In this bug, our compiler falsely flags a rather complicated and contrived piece of code with an error. This type of construct should not appear in any normal code. In a real case, you’d expect to see:

template<class> struct A_ {};

A_<void> b_;

Which compiles as expected. Still, it’s a bug that we need to track.