←back to thread

GCC 15.1

(gcc.gnu.org)
270 points jrepinc | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Calavar ◴[] No.43792948[source]
> {0} initializer in C or C++ for unions no longer guarantees clearing of the whole union (except for static storage duration initialization), it just initializes the first union member to zero. If initialization of the whole union including padding bits is desirable, use {} (valid in C23 or C++) or use -fzero-init-padding-bits=unions option to restore old GCC behavior.

This is going to silently break so much existing code, especially union based type punning in C code. {0} used to guarantee full zeroing and {} did not, and step by step we've flipped the situation to the reverse. The only sensible thing, in terms of not breaking old code, would be to have both {0} and {} zero initialize the whole union.

I'm sure this change was discussed in depth on the mailing list, but it's absolutely mind boggling to me

replies(14): >>43793036 #>>43793080 #>>43793121 #>>43793150 #>>43793166 #>>43794045 #>>43794558 #>>43796460 #>>43798312 #>>43798826 #>>43800132 #>>43800234 #>>43800932 #>>43800975 #
ogoffart ◴[] No.43793121[source]
> This is going to silently break so much existing code

The code was already broken. It was an undefined behavior.

That's a problem with C and it's undefined behavior minefields.

replies(3): >>43793132 #>>43793486 #>>43796042 #
1. mwkaufma ◴[] No.43796042[source]
Undefined in the standard doesn't mean undefined in GCC. Type-punning through unions has always been a special case that GCC has taken care with beyond the standard.