Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #82942
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C++20 concepts rocks |
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:20 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86fsovkdjw.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <stmgvd$r0s$1@dont-email.me> <stn5hs$23i$1@redfloyd.dont-email.me> <sto2hk$4ha$1@dont-email.me> <sto62g$b91$1@dont-email.me> <87mtj4qd0h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The code using `(&result)[1]` involves a couple of extra conversions
>
> Eh? char *ep = r + sizeof(r); involves one array-to-pointer conversion
> just as char *ep = (&r)[1]; does.
>
>> and indirections and is thus needlessly complex, plus it's formally
>> UB,
>
> Can you point to where this is made UB in the C++ standard?
>
> There is an ambiguous phrase in the C standard ("undefined behaviour if
> the * is evaluated") but that phrase is entirely missing in the C++
> text. And I got lost in the forest of rvalues, lvalues, prvalues,
> xvalues and glvalues without finding anything undefined. Can you find
> it? [...]
Let me take a stab at explaining. There is undefined behavior in
the code that Alf originally responded to, but where the UB is
and why it is UB has not been explained very well. Two points to
start: there is nothing wrong with the original initializing
declaration; and the aspect of dereferencing is a red herring.
To begin suppose we have this code:
char foo[2][20];
char *p = foo[1];
There is nothing wrong with this code. After these declarations
the variable p points at the first element of foo[1];
But a problem happens if we want to use p to create pointer
values that point to elements of foo[0], as for example
char *p_prime = p-1;
The rules for pointer arithmetic don't allow this. The reason
is p points an element of foo[1], but p-1 doesn't. In both C
and C++ the semantic description for adding an integer to a
pointer defines the result only if P and P+N are both elements
of the same array (or one past the last element). But that
isn't true here. The variable p unambiguously points at an
element of foo[1], but p-1 does not. If we have two pointers
p and q
char foo[2][20];
char *p = foo[1];
char *q = foo[0] + 20;
the pointers p and q will (and must) compare equal, but they are
not interchangeable, because they point into different subarrays
of foo.
Going back to the earlier code, we have
char *ep = (&result)[1];
There is nothing wrong with this initialization. But by virtue
of taking the address of result, which is an array, we have in
effect created a two-dimensional array, and have initialized ep
with a pointer that points into the "second subarray" of that
two-dimensional array. The created pointer value is not allowed
to participate in arithmetic that would take it into the first
subarray. So later in the earlier code when we use this
expression
ep - 4
the code is asking for a pointer to an object in (&result)[1].
But there is no such object. The expressions
ep - 0
and
ep + 0
would both be okay, but only because what is being added or
subtracted is zero; if any non-zero value were used there
is undefined behavior, because the resulting pointer value
does not point to an object in the same subarray. (In effect
there is one and only one object in the second subarray, but
trying to access that mythical object also falls into the
realm of undefined behavior.)
References: section 6.5.6 paragraph 8 for C (n1570);
section 7.6.6 paragraph 4.2 for C++ (N4860).
For the record, IMO neither the C standard nor the C++ standard
describes plainly enough what the rules are for multi-dimensional
arrays. I understand why the rules are the way they are, but I
would like to see one or both standards state how things work in
a more lucid fashion.
Does this help clear things up?
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 13:54 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-04 14:25 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 15:31 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-04 14:54 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 17:41 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 11:31 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 12:49 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 12:20 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-04 16:15 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 17:43 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 01:51 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-05 01:59 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:56 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-05 13:53 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 14:12 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:13 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-12 22:18 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-02-13 12:51 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-13 20:16 +0200
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-13 14:12 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-02-13 16:22 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-13 17:18 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-02-14 00:51 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-14 08:29 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-04 23:37 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:58 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:16 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-05 12:35 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 05:54 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-02-06 19:43 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-04 23:53 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 10:10 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:51 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 16:42 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 01:39 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-05 18:02 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 09:57 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:57 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 12:40 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-02-06 03:53 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 11:20 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-06 21:53 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 19:03 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-07 11:50 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 06:26 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-07 15:48 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 12:16 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 22:27 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-09 21:43 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-09 21:07 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-09 21:25 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-10 13:05 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-10 11:19 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-11 05:41 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 17:06 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-11 11:50 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 21:13 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-02-11 17:06 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-15 00:10 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 20:58 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-16 06:40 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 09:54 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-16 09:00 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 20:25 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-17 08:53 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-17 16:11 +0200
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-17 10:58 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-17 07:32 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-19 02:21 -0700
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 11:56 +0200
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-25 03:02 -0700
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-02-12 00:01 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-14 23:55 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 18:31 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-02-07 17:43 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-02-06 14:25 -0500
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:01 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-06 19:37 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 10:18 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-02-07 11:32 +0200
Re: C++20 concepts rocks red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-02-07 07:55 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 02:11 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 13:13 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-06 04:58 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 14:08 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 12:48 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-04 20:15 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-05 11:32 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-06 08:28 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-07 09:52 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-08 07:05 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-02-08 09:25 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-02-08 10:09 +0000
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-02-04 12:10 -0800
Re: C++20 concepts rocks Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 13:41 +0100
Re: C++20 concepts rocks "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:28 -0800
A little benchmark: Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 13:22 +0100
A better benchmark Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 14:56 +0100
A improved routine Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:19 +0100
Re: A better benchmark Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-02-07 06:57 -0800
Re: A better benchmark Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 18:30 +0100
csiph-web