If I have a std::optional
wrapped around (say) an
std::vector::const_iterator
, is it safe to access the referenced
element with two consecutive dereference (*
) operators?
For example:
typedef std::vector<int> IVec;
// Get a valid iterator.
IVec::const_iterator it = ivec.cbegin();
assert(it != ivec.end());
// Wrap it in an optional.
std::optional<IVec::const_iterator> itOpt(it);
assert(itOpt);
// Access the iterator via double dereference.
return **itOpt;
As far as I can tell, this is fine as long as ivec
is not a local, but
Clang complains:
warning: reference to stack memory associated with local variable 'itOpt' returned [-Wreturn-stack-address]
Complete example:
// test.cc
// Clang complains when accessing an optional iterator.
#include <cassert> // assert
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <optional> // std::optional
#include <vector> // std::vector
typedef std::vector<int> IVec;
IVec ivec;
int const &getVecElementRef()
{
// Get a valid iterator.
IVec::const_iterator it = ivec.cbegin();
assert(it != ivec.end());
// Wrap it in an optional.
std::optional<IVec::const_iterator> itOpt(it);
assert(itOpt);
#if 1
// Access the iterator via double dereference.
//
// Clang complains: warning: reference to stack memory associated with
// local variable 'itOpt' returned [-Wreturn-stack-address]
return **itOpt;
#else
// This works fine (with or without the `const &` part).
auto const &tmp = *itOpt;
return *tmp;
#endif
}
int main()
{
ivec.push_back(0);
// Get an element reference using operator[].
int const &v0 = ivec[0];
std::cout << "&v0: " << &v0 << "\n";
// Get an element reference using the function. The resulting address
// is the same.
int const &v1 = getVecElementRef();
std::cout << "&v1: " << &v1 << "\n";
// Returns 0.
return v1;
}
// EOF
With Clang (v16, v18, and latest), I get:
$ clang++ -o test.exe -std=c++17 -g -Wall test.cc
test.cc:27:12: warning: reference to stack memory associated with local variable 'itOpt' returned [-Wreturn-stack-address]
return **itOpt;
^~~~~
1 warning generated.
$ ./test.exe
&v0: 0x5633e9c95eb0
&v1: 0x5633e9c95eb0
GCC and MSVC accept this example without complaint (https://godbolt.org/z/f49P4s4fd).
Is there a hidden danger here, or is Clang just wrong?
As the consensus seems to be that this is false positive, I have filed Clang Issue #96403.
It's a false positive. The code is ok.
The element referenced in the returned reference lives in ivec
which is global so that's not a problem.
One thing to be careful here is that the reference returned can get invalidated with some operations on vector like push
etc. See Iterator invalidation rules for C++ containers