validation: static_assert to ensure width in unit class #16696

pull shargon wants to merge 5 commits into bitcoin:master from shargon:fix-uintbase changing 1 files +16 −0

shargon commented at 3:24 PM on August 23, 2019: none

Because operators are implemented in the base class, and being inherited by uint256 and unit512, if a copy or read is made between these types, random memory would be being accessed.
static_assert to ensure width in unit class a1d85e7cc2
static_assert to ensure width in unit class
Add one more
2c5a6cc634
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/fix-uintbase' into fix-uintbase 30978241dd
tryphe commented at 3:36 PM on August 23, 2019: contributor

Why skip the other functions, like operator =? It seems like the same rationale should apply. Just curious.
More asserts ca5ee1ef9f
shargon commented at 3:40 PM on August 23, 2019: none

@tryphe Thanks, was forgotten
More asserts 6509273e9d
DrahtBot commented at 5:38 AM on August 24, 2019: member



The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.



Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.
laanwj commented at 11:32 AM on September 16, 2019: member

ACK, looks good to me, these sanity asserts can't hurt.

Please squash your commits.
laanwj added the label Waiting for author on Oct 2, 2019
laanwj added the label Validation on Oct 2, 2019

laanwj commented at 10:34 AM on October 28, 2019: member

This gives me the following compile error (clang linux)

/…/bitcoin/src/arith_uint256.h:51:32: error: static_assert expression is not an integral constant expression
        static_assert(WIDTH == b.WIDTH, "Template parameter WIDTH must be equal.");
                      ~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
/…/bitcoin/src/arith_uint256.h:268:7: note: in instantiation of member function 'base_uint<256>::operator=' requested here
class arith_uint256 : public base_uint<256> {
      ^
1 error generated

fanquake renamed this:
~~[validation] static_assert to ensure width in unit class~~
validation: static_assert to ensure width in unit class
on Oct 28, 2019
practicalswift commented at 2:54 PM on October 28, 2019: contributor

Concept ACK: compile time checking cannot hurt
fanquake deleted a comment on Oct 28, 2019
MarcoFalke commented at 3:19 PM on October 28, 2019: member

@shargon Are you still working on this?
shargon commented at 2:12 AM on October 29, 2019: none

I am on vacations, please give me a week.
shargon commented at 12:26 PM on November 13, 2019: none

Could you summarize the expected changes and confirm that it could be merged in order to avoid the waste of time as #16310
MarcoFalke commented at 1:36 PM on November 13, 2019: member

Adding static_asserts to document assumptions is nice, but they must have no false positives.
fanquake commented at 8:12 AM on January 25, 2020: member

Let me know if you want this reopened.
fanquake closed this on Jan 25, 2020
fanquake removed the label Waiting for author on May 28, 2020
shargon deleted the branch on Oct 26, 2021
DrahtBot locked this on Oct 30, 2022

Contributors

Labels

validation: static_assert to ensure width in unit class #16696

Conflicts