GCC 16 has been released(gcc.gnu.org) |
GCC 16 has been released(gcc.gnu.org) |
P2590R2, Explicit lifetime management (PR106658)
Nearly all zero-copy code that deals with external I/O buffers looks something like:
std::unique_ptr<char[]> buffer = stream->read();
if (buffer[0] == FOO)
processFoo(reinterpret_cast<Foo*>(buffer.get())); // undefined behavior
else
processBar(reinterpret_cast<Bar*>(buffer.get())); // undefined behaviour
The "start_lifetime_as" facility does one additional thing beyond providing a tidy standard name for the memory laundering incantation. Semantically it doesn't touch the memory whereas the no-op memmove intrinsically does. In practice, this makes little difference, since the compiler could see that the memmove was a no-op and optimized accordingly.
> Implicitly creates a complete object of type T (whose address is p) and objects nested within it. The value of each created object obj of TriviallyCopyable type U is determined in the same manner as for a call to std::bit_cast<U>(E) except that the storage is not actually accessed, where E is the lvalue of type U denoting obj. Otherwise, the values of such created objects are unspecified.
So T is the complete new object. It contains subobjects, and one of those subobjects has type U. U is initialized as if by bit_cast, and I presume they meant to say that bit_cast casted from the bits already present at the address in question. Since “obj” is mentioned without any definition of any sort, I’ll assume it means something at the correct address.
But what’s E? The page says “E is the lvalue of type U denoting obj,” but obj probably has type char or a similar type, and if it already had type U, there would be no need for bit_cast.
start_lifetime_as is useful when the buffer lifetime is transparent to the compiler and it can mess up aliasing assumptions.
You're allowed to access any type via a char buffer. But the converse is not true (quoting https://eel.is/c++draft/expr#basic.lval-11):
> An object of dynamic type Tobj is type-accessible through a glvalue of type Tref if Tref is similar ([conv.qual]) to: Tobj, a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to Tobj, or a char, unsigned char, or std :: byte type. If a program attempts to access ([defns.access]) the stored value of an object through a glvalue through which it is not type-accessible, the behavior is undefined.
The dynamic type of a char buffer is, well, a char buffer, and can only be accessed via things that are the same type as a char buffer up to signedness and cv-qualification. The actual strict aliasing rules are not commutative!
Up until Java 9, they would release once features were complete. But that meant there were years between the 7 and 8 release and even more years between the 8 and 9 release.
The industry had gotten into the habit of always running old versions of Java (my company was on 6 for an uncomfortable amount of time. But others have had it worse).
More frequent smaller releases has gotten companies more into the habit of updating frequently which also, very helpfully, gives devs new features frequently.
It used to be slower and I've spent way too much time working around C++ bugs in GCC 2.95
(The fact that I remember the problematic version is telling :)
-static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc
?But:
> GCC can now output diagnostics in HTML form via -fdiagnostics-add-output=experimental-html
I wonder what drove the decision to remove JSON output and add HTML output?
Hopefully they fixed those issues. We all need stability and things-to-work.
A big difference between the 2 is also the license. GCC uses the GPL while LLVM uses Apache License, hence the projects don't share code.
No
SM was a monstrous Java app that papered over the (horrifying) fact that everything on a Wellfleet router was configured with SNMP (full-body shiver). Oh, there was a CLI, but even a hard-core CLI pilot like myself couldn't face stuff like "set wflplnterfaceEntry.2.192.168.10.10.3 1" all day long.
Wellfleet clearly employed no software engineers, only monkeys that hammered on keyboards and piled cruft upon cruft to the SM codebase. The end result was that every release of Wellfleet device code (down to point releases) relied on a particular version of SM, which, of course, relied on a particular version of Java.
Now, since virtually no site over a certain size could count on every device running the same version of code, you had to be able to switch between a couple of versions of Java to run a given version of SM. And, as a consultant to Wellfleet shops, I had to be able to run all of them. I got really good at multibooting Windows, but in the end I had a 'Wellfleet' laptop modified a bit so I could easily pop it open and swap disks, each one for a different version of SM running on a different version of Java.
Good times...it was not.
E.g. 3.2026-05-01FS for a first release of the day with a new feature & security fix to release series 3, 2.2026-05-01S backporting the security fix to release series 2 (LTS, say), 3.2026-05-02 for a "bug fixes & performance improvements" release, 3.2026-05-02S.1 for a security fix to the "bug fixes & performance improvements" release.
Like SemVer, this lets users know when there are breaking changes to an API or such, which releases contain security fixes, which releases have new features, and allows multiple simultaneous release versions for LTS support. Like CalVer it lets users know how recent a release is, and makes it pretty easy to figure out what the release schedule was historically (and likely still is) by comparing versions.
I think they are just now back on to a regular release cadence, but they weren't for a long time.
Malloc returns a buffer and then you cast it to the type you want. Similarly for all memory allocators.
Punning the same region of char buffer as two different types is a bit different.
Malloc returns memory that is uninitialized and has no type. The effective type of that memory is initialized on first use by C, whereas C++ relies on angelic nondeterminism to magically initialize the type at return type to whatever will work in the future.
You can’t cast the buffer — you’re casting the pointer.
One might argue (I’m not sure whether this is correct) that malloc allocated an array of ints and the language merely has no way to state that directly. Then you write to those ints using a char pointer, and then you access them as ints, but they’ve been ints ever since allocation.
See https://eel.is/c++draft/intro.object#def:object,implicit_cre....
https://eel.is/c++draft/intro.object#15 is an example showing this with malloc; the subsequent paragraph further permits it to work with an unsigned char array.
2. It doesn't initialize the object that is implicitly created, even if the storage has initialized chars.