interesting thread about whether it's OK to create dialects of C and C++ that zero-initialize local variables
lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-
10
13
54
Conversation
my view is that the current non-initializing behavior is so clearly bad that we should allow this dialect to develop and worry about standardizing it later
11
3
56
Replying to
It's undefined behavior and defining it as zero is no more of a language dialect than guaranteeing a non-zero pattern or guaranteeing that it traps. Traps are something that can be relied upon and processed. It's no more of a language extension than any of the UBSan sanitizers.
2
2
The language leaves it up to compilers to choose how to implement implementation-defined and undefined behavior. LLVM historically didn't provide a way to get safe implementations of most undefined behaviors but -fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined is exactly that.
1
How is that not a dialect? This code will work on compilers that implement zero-init and will likely fail randomly or have vulnerabilities on compilers that don't.
Perhaps we don't have a common understanding of what a dialect is.
1
1
1
They say that zero init is a dialect but initialization with any other byte pattern chosen by the developer is somehow not a dialect. That doesn't make any sense. Regardless of how a dialect is defined, either both of those are language dialects or neither of them is a dialect.
Similarly, if zero-init is a dialect, so is trapping or zero-or-trap. These are all ways of defining an undefined behavior which the language leaves up to compilers to handle. The -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero switch does NOT make it correct to use uninitialized data. Still a bug.
2
The -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero switch does not disable warnings for uninitialized variable usage and does not stop sanitizers like MSan from catching it. It's still a bug. It doesn't permit doing something but rather makes it less unsafe like CFI, ASLR, stack canaries, [...].
1
2
Show replies