Merge pull request #5704 from tautschnig/union-test-2

Union regression test of unspecified behaviour

Author: tautschnig

regression/cbmc/union15/main.c

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+#include <assert.h>
+
+struct S
+{
+  union U {
+    int x;
+    int y;
+  } u;
+  int z;
+} s = {1, 2};
+
+union B {
+  unsigned char b : 1;
+  unsigned char c;
+};
+
+union C {
+  char c;
+  int i;
+};
+
+union A {
+  struct
+  {
+    char c;
+    char p[3];
+  };
+  int i;
+} x = {1};
+
+int main()
+{
+  // Make sure elements of initializer lists are assigned to the right members
+  // (in particular, `2` is not to be assigned to the second component of the
+  // union, but has to be assigned to the second member of the struct).
+  assert(s.u.x == 1);
+  assert(s.z == 2);
+  assert(x.p[0] == 0);
+
+  // The C standard (6.2.6.1 (7)) states: "When a value is stored in a member of
+  // an object of union type, the bytes of the object representation that do not
+  // correspond to that member but do correspond to other members take
+  // unspecified values." Appendix J.1 Unspecified behavior refers back to this:
+  // "When a value is stored in a member of an object of union type, the bytes
+  // of the object representation that do not correspond to that member but do
+  // correspond to other members take unspecified values."
+  //
+  // GCC, Clang, Visual Studio (and possibly others) choose to maintain the
+  // values of any bits not being assigned to. This includes bit fields, as the
+  // following examples demonstrate.
+  union B ub = {.c = 0xFF};
+  ub.b = 0;
+  assert(ub.c == 0xFE);
+
+  union C uc = {.i = 0xFFFFFFFF};
+  uc.c = 0;
+  assert(uc.i == 0xFFFFFF00);
+
+  union A ua = {.i = 0xFFFFFFFF};
+  ua.c = 0;
+  assert(ua.i == 0xFFFFFF00);
+}

regression/cbmc/union15/test.desc

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+CORE broken-smt-backend
+main.c
+
+^EXIT=0$
+^SIGNAL=0$
+^VERIFICATION SUCCESSFUL$
+--
+^warning: ignoring