patch: avoid ubsan errors in implicit copy constructors

Richard Smith richard at
Mon Sep 9 15:33:03 PDT 2013

Use a ctor-initializer for OldSanOpts.

Do you need to handle the assignment operator too? A test for move
constructors / move assignments would be great, too (not that I expect any
problems there).

Do you care that the UBSan checks will still be enabled
when CGF.getLangOpts().getGC() != LangOptions::NonGC? We seem to also fail
to memcpy non-GC'd fields in that case too =)

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at> wrote:

> The attached patch disables the bool and enum sanitizers when emitting the
> implicitly-defined copy constructor.
> To start with an example:
>   struct X { X(); X(const X&); };
>   struct Y { X x; bool b; };
> if you don't initialize Y::b then try to copy an object of Y type, ubsan
> will complain. Technically, with the standard as written, ubsan is correct.
> However, this is a useful thing to do -- you may have a discriminator which
> decides which elements are not interesting and therefore never initialize
> or read them. Secondly, it's a departure from the rules in C, making
> well-defined C code have undefined behaviour in C++ (structs are never trap
> values, see C99 Thirdly, it's checked incompletely right now --
> if you make subtle changes (f.e. add an "int i;" member to Y) ubsan will
> stop complaining. The semantic I'm implementing is as if the implicit copy
> constructor is copying the value representation (the bytes) not the object
> representation (the meaning of those bytes).
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list