Hi,
I posted this to clang mailing list a
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2018-May/001335.html
but since it is related to Boost.GIL bugs I'm investigating,
I'd like to reach for feedback here too.
I'll appreciate any comments regarding the issue explained below.
ML
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mateusz Loskot
Date: 19 May 2018 at 21:38
Subject: Boost.GIL test failing with clang 5.x while pass with 15
gcc/clang versions
To: cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
Hi,
While testing Boost.GIL library [1] with gcc and clang, I noticed a
peculiar issue.
One particular test is failing with lang 5.x while passing with total of 15-17
other versions of clang and GCC (total workflow of CircleCI with at [2]).
Below is extracted minimal program equivalent to Boost.GIL
channel_invert algorithm. It includes two variants: plain expression
and the same expression wrapped with a function template:
#include <limits>
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
template <typename C>
inline C channel_invert1(C x)
{
return std::numeric_limits<C>::max() - x + std::numeric_limits<C>::min();
}
template <typename C>
inline C channel_invert2(C x)
{
return (x - std::numeric_limits<C>::max()) * (-1) +
std::numeric_limits<C>::min();
}
int main()
{
int x = std::numeric_limits<int>::min();
std::cout << x << std::endl;
// plain expressions
int x_invert1 = std::numeric_limits<int>::max() - x +
std::numeric_limits<int>::min();
int x_invert2 = (x - std::numeric_limits<int>::max()) * (-1) +
std::numeric_limits<int>::min();
std::cout << x_invert1 << std::endl;
std::cout << x_invert2 << std::endl;
// the same expressions wrapped in function template
std::cout << channel_invert1<int>(x) << std::endl;
std::cout << channel_invert2<int>(x) << std::endl;
}
If compiled as optimised variant (-O2 or -O3) with clang 5.x outputs
the following:
-2147483648
2147483647
2147483647
-1
-1
The last two negative one is not expected.
If compiled with clang 3.9, 4.0 or gcc from 5.1 to 7.3 it outputs
-2147483648
2147483647
2147483647
2147483647
2147483647
Could anyone help me to understand what is going on in the clang 5 case?
Or, what UB is this hitting?
[1] https://github.com/boostorg/gil/issues/89
[2] https://circleci.com/workflow-run/3a14dd64-6c38-46b2-a6da-678c0075ca27
Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
