Is it a bug in g++? [closed]

Question

#include <stdint.h>
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

uint32_t k[] = {0, 1, 17};

template <typename T>
bool f(T *data, int i) {
    return data[0] < (T)(1 << k[i]);
}

int main() {
    uint8_t v = 0;
    cout << f(&v, 2) << endl;
    cout << (0 < (uint8_t)(1 << 17)) << endl;
    return 0;
}

g++ a.cpp && ./a.out
1
0

Why am I getting these results?

Answer 1

It looks like gcc reverses the shift and applies it to the other side, and I guess this is a bug.

In C (instead of C++) the same thing happens, and C translated to asm is easier to read, so I'm using C here; also I reduced the test cases (dropping templates and the k array). foo() is the original buggy f() function, foo1() is what foo() behaves like with gcc but shouldn't, and bar() shows what foo() should look like apart from the pointer read.

I'm on 64-bit, but 32-bit is the same apart from the parameter handling and finding k.

#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>

uint32_t k = 17;
char foo(uint8_t *data) {
    return *data < (uint8_t)(1<<k);
/*
with gcc -O3 -S: (gcc version 4.7.2 (Debian 4.7.2-5))
    movzbl  (%rdi), %eax
    movl    k(%rip), %ecx
    shrb    %cl, %al
    testb   %al, %al
    sete    %al
    ret
*/
}
char foo1(uint8_t *data) {
    return (((uint32_t)*data) >> k) < 1;
/*
    movzbl  (%rdi), %eax
    movl    k(%rip), %ecx
    shrl    %cl, %eax
    testl   %eax, %eax
    sete    %al
    ret
*/
}
char bar(uint8_t data) {
    return data < (uint8_t)(1<<k);
/*
    movl    k(%rip), %ecx
    movl    $1, %eax
    sall    %cl, %eax
    cmpb    %al, %dil
    setb    %al
    ret
*/
}

int main() {
    uint8_t v = 0;
    printf("All should be 0: %i %i %i\n", foo(&v), foo1(&v), bar(v));
    return 0;
}

Answer 2

If your int is 16-bit long, you're running into undefined behavior and either result is "OK".

Shifting N-bit integers by N or more bit positions left or right results in undefined behavior.

Since this happens with 32-bit ints, this is a bug in the compiler.