[PATCH] Fix aliasing violation tst-rec-dlopen

[Pedro Alves]

On 12/15/2015 03:30 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>            /* According to the ISO C standard, casting between function
>>               pointers and 'void *', as done above, produces undefined results.
>>               POSIX.1-2003 and POSIX.1-2008 accepted this state of affairs and
>>               proposed the following workaround:
>>
>>                   *(void **) (&cosine) = dlsym(handle, "cos");
>>
>>               This (clumsy) cast conforms with the ISO C standard and will
>>               avoid any compiler warnings.
> 
> This construct is *not* conforming; this is a common and understandable
> error.  `cosine` has a declared type, therefore writing to it via a pointer of
> any other (incompatible) type (except `char *`, which is a special case)
> provokes undefined behavior.
> 

Right, I'm aware, having gone through fixing a bunch of aliasing warnings
in the past.  The point was simply to point out that the way it was written
was following a guideline.

> The only ways a s.c. program can write the value returned by `dlsym` into
> a function-pointer variable are with `memcpy` or a union.  But in both cases,
> then *calling the function pointer* provokes undefined behavior.  This is all
> very much intentional -- ISO C wants to allow for the possibility that function
> pointers are genuinely different in some way from object pointers.

(this is not s.c., though.)

Seems like a funny situation: old POSIX suggested A (weird cast)
to avoid warnings emitted if you do the more natural B (pointer conversion).
New POSIX requires that doing B works.  Older compilers warned about B.
New compilers warn with A.

As this seems to leave you with no way to avoid the warning everywhere,
I wondered whether specific code in the compiler that was supposed
to suppress the warning in this particular case happened to bit rot
(if it ever existed).  I don't recall the last time I saw GCC warn
about B though, truth be told.  So maybe not a useful question...

Thanks,
Pedro Alves