In C++14 is it valid to use a double in the dimension of a new expression?
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
In C++14 given the following code:
void foo() {
double d = 5.0;
auto p1 = new int[d];
}
clang compiles this without diagnostic while gcc on the other hand produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: expression in new-declarator must have integral or enumeration type
7 | auto p1 = new int[d];
|
I specifically labeled this C++14 because in C++11 mode clang treats this as ill-formed and produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: array size expression must have integral or unscoped enumeration type, not 'double'
auto p1 = new int[d];
^ ~
Is clang correct? If so what changed in C++14 to allow this?
c++ c++14 language-lawyer
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
In C++14 given the following code:
void foo() {
double d = 5.0;
auto p1 = new int[d];
}
clang compiles this without diagnostic while gcc on the other hand produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: expression in new-declarator must have integral or enumeration type
7 | auto p1 = new int[d];
|
I specifically labeled this C++14 because in C++11 mode clang treats this as ill-formed and produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: array size expression must have integral or unscoped enumeration type, not 'double'
auto p1 = new int[d];
^ ~
Is clang correct? If so what changed in C++14 to allow this?
c++ c++14 language-lawyer
1
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such asint * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.
– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
In C++14 given the following code:
void foo() {
double d = 5.0;
auto p1 = new int[d];
}
clang compiles this without diagnostic while gcc on the other hand produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: expression in new-declarator must have integral or enumeration type
7 | auto p1 = new int[d];
|
I specifically labeled this C++14 because in C++11 mode clang treats this as ill-formed and produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: array size expression must have integral or unscoped enumeration type, not 'double'
auto p1 = new int[d];
^ ~
Is clang correct? If so what changed in C++14 to allow this?
c++ c++14 language-lawyer
In C++14 given the following code:
void foo() {
double d = 5.0;
auto p1 = new int[d];
}
clang compiles this without diagnostic while gcc on the other hand produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: expression in new-declarator must have integral or enumeration type
7 | auto p1 = new int[d];
|
I specifically labeled this C++14 because in C++11 mode clang treats this as ill-formed and produces the following diagnostic (see it live):
error: array size expression must have integral or unscoped enumeration type, not 'double'
auto p1 = new int[d];
^ ~
Is clang correct? If so what changed in C++14 to allow this?
c++ c++14 language-lawyer
c++ c++14 language-lawyer
asked 2 hours ago
Shafik Yaghmour
124k23317524
124k23317524
1
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such asint * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.
– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such asint * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.
– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago
1
1
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such as
int * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such as
int * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
clang is correct, the key wording in [expr.new]p6 changes from this in the C++11 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression ([expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be of integral type, unscoped enumeration type, or a class type for which a single non-explicit conversion function to integral or unscoped enumeration type exists ([class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. …
to this in the C++14 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be a converted constant expression ([expr.const]) of type std::size_t and shall evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declaratoris implicitly converted to std::size_t. …
So in C++14 the requirement for the expression noptr-new-declarator was weakened to not require an integral, unscoped enumeration or a class with a
single non-explicit conversion function to one of those types but just allow implicit conversions to size_t.
This change came from the proposal A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions, v3.
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowingdouble
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(
– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to saycontextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(
– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
clang is correct, the key wording in [expr.new]p6 changes from this in the C++11 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression ([expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be of integral type, unscoped enumeration type, or a class type for which a single non-explicit conversion function to integral or unscoped enumeration type exists ([class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. …
to this in the C++14 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be a converted constant expression ([expr.const]) of type std::size_t and shall evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declaratoris implicitly converted to std::size_t. …
So in C++14 the requirement for the expression noptr-new-declarator was weakened to not require an integral, unscoped enumeration or a class with a
single non-explicit conversion function to one of those types but just allow implicit conversions to size_t.
This change came from the proposal A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions, v3.
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowingdouble
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(
– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to saycontextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(
– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
clang is correct, the key wording in [expr.new]p6 changes from this in the C++11 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression ([expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be of integral type, unscoped enumeration type, or a class type for which a single non-explicit conversion function to integral or unscoped enumeration type exists ([class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. …
to this in the C++14 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be a converted constant expression ([expr.const]) of type std::size_t and shall evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declaratoris implicitly converted to std::size_t. …
So in C++14 the requirement for the expression noptr-new-declarator was weakened to not require an integral, unscoped enumeration or a class with a
single non-explicit conversion function to one of those types but just allow implicit conversions to size_t.
This change came from the proposal A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions, v3.
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowingdouble
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(
– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to saycontextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(
– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
clang is correct, the key wording in [expr.new]p6 changes from this in the C++11 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression ([expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be of integral type, unscoped enumeration type, or a class type for which a single non-explicit conversion function to integral or unscoped enumeration type exists ([class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. …
to this in the C++14 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be a converted constant expression ([expr.const]) of type std::size_t and shall evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declaratoris implicitly converted to std::size_t. …
So in C++14 the requirement for the expression noptr-new-declarator was weakened to not require an integral, unscoped enumeration or a class with a
single non-explicit conversion function to one of those types but just allow implicit conversions to size_t.
This change came from the proposal A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions, v3.
clang is correct, the key wording in [expr.new]p6 changes from this in the C++11 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression ([expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be of integral type, unscoped enumeration type, or a class type for which a single non-explicit conversion function to integral or unscoped enumeration type exists ([class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. …
to this in the C++14 draft:
Every constant-expression in a noptr-new-declarator shall be a converted constant expression ([expr.const]) of type std::size_t and shall evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a noptr-new-declaratoris implicitly converted to std::size_t. …
So in C++14 the requirement for the expression noptr-new-declarator was weakened to not require an integral, unscoped enumeration or a class with a
single non-explicit conversion function to one of those types but just allow implicit conversions to size_t.
This change came from the proposal A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions, v3.
answered 2 hours ago
Shafik Yaghmour
124k23317524
124k23317524
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowingdouble
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(
– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to saycontextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(
– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
add a comment |
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowingdouble
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(
– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to saycontextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(
– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
2
2
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowing
double
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
I am dubious about the usefulness of allowing
double
to be used as the size of an array... it seems more likely to let bugs pass silently than anything else :(– Matthieu M.
37 mins ago
2
2
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to say
contextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
@MatthieuM. I agree, I believe it is a defect and that the intent was really to say
contextually implicitly converted
. I am filing a defect report on this hopefully today but who knows maybe I am wrong :-(– Shafik Yaghmour
28 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53745158%2fin-c14-is-it-valid-to-use-a-double-in-the-dimension-of-a-new-expression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Out of curiosity, a double allows for fractional quantities, so how would you allocate 0.75 of an integer, such as
int * p_array = new int [0.75];
? Or take something like 0.33333333, which is kind of difficult to allocate.– Thomas Matthews
1 hour ago
I expect it to use the binary value of it as an integer even when it's a double so 0.75 would be 0011111111101 as an integer it's 16360
– tomer zeitune
34 mins ago
@ThomasMatthews no this would end up being a float to integral conversion and would truncate the float
– Shafik Yaghmour
25 mins ago