Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #82962
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C++20 concepts rocks |
| Date | 2022-02-07 12:16 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86leymiga7.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <877da7r7ap.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86bkzjjs3c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87k0e6q4j8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8635kukb17.fsf@linuxsc.com> <878rumptie.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>
>> [.. considering the idiom (&x)[1], where x is an array ..]
>>
>>>>> So given
>>>>>
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> char *cp = (void *)(&i + 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> accessing the bytes of i from cp is also undefined.
>>>>
>>>> No, accessing cp[-1], etc, is defined behavior. The two
>>>> situations are not analogous. The reason is that in this case
>>>> there is only one array, without any subarrays.
>>>
>>> Does that not depend how literally one takes the "an object is an
>>> array of length one" rule?
>>>
>>> (I'm not being 100% serious here. It's obviously intended to
>>> mean, "an object is the sole element in an array of length one".)
>>
>> I believe the rule about treating objects as an array of length
>> one does not enter into the question;
>
> I thought it comes into play every time arithmetic is done on a
> pointer to an object that is not an element of an array. There
> appears to be no other explicit justification for the "one past the
> end" pointer &i + 1.
Yes, it is important that the expression &i+1 obeys the rule
about treating pointers to objects not in an array the same as if
the object were an element in an array of length 1. What I meant
was that this rule doesn't matter for whether there is undefined
behavior -- the expression &x + 1 always works, no matter what x
is (assuming the expression x doesn't refer to a bitfield or
something like that).
> Mind you, footnote 76 makes it clear: "an object that is not an
> array element is considered to belong to a single-element array for
> this purpose" and C has similar wording. I misremembered the rule:
> it's not that the object is considered to /be/ an array but to be
> /in/ an array or length one. I think the rule of often misquoted.
Looking up the relevant passages in the two standards, I find
they are slightly different. In C++ the rule is primarily about
objects, whereas in C the rule centers around pointer values.
Probably the two rules have the same consequences, but I haven't
tried to verify that.
>> all that matters is the
>> types involved. The type of &i is pointer to int. However, if
>> we did this
>>
>> int i;
>> char *cp = ( (char (*)[sizeof i]) &i )[1];
>>
>> then there would again be undefined behavior, because now the
>> type of the expression before the [1] is a pointer-to-array type,
>> and so that expression ultimately gets converted to a pointer to
>> an element of the second subarray.
>>
>>> I've cut the rest of your very helpful explanation except for a
>>> detail:
>>>
>>>> If you don't mind using a cast or compound literal, you can use
>>>> the &x+1 form regardless of whether x is a scalar or an array:
>>>>
>>>> char result[20];
>>>> char *ep = (void*){ &result + 1 };
>>>
>>> We're are talking about C++ here. Maybe there is some default
>>> constructor equivalent of this.
>>
>> Sorry, yes. In some cases in C, and in C++, using a cast may be
>> the only option:
>>
>> char result[20];
>> char *ep = (char*)( &result + 1 );
>
> Thinking about this a bit more I not 100% convinced; or perhaps I am
> just a little uneasy about how easy it would be to get this wrong.
>
> Switching to int (so that any special rules about accessing an object's
> byte representation using a pointer to char don't come into play) this
>
> int result[20];
> int *ip = (int *)(&result + 1);
>
> allows accesses like ip[-1], so (unless I'm missing some other rules)
> this
>
> int result2[2][20];
> int *ip = (int *)(&result2[0] + 1);
>
> allows access to result2[0] via negative indexes, but not to result2[1]
> using positive ones, despite the fact that the pointer being converted
> is a pointer to the second subarray of 'result2'. Is that how you see
> things?
If you think you're going to confuse with these questions, well
it is quite possible that you will. :)
Having said that, I press on.
Certainly the expression 'result2' is able to access any object
within the confines of the two-dimensional array result2.
Similarly the expression 'result2 + 0' is able to access any
object with in the confines of the two-dimensional array result2,
because 'result2 + 0' is exactly the same pointer as 'result2'.
The expression '&result2[0]' is, by definition, the same as the
expression '& * (result2 + 0)'. (Sidebar: in C that is always
true, whereas in C++ things may be different because of operator
overloading or something like that. I am assuming that these
possibilities don't come into play here, and '&result2[0]' acts
the same way in C++ as it does in C. (End sidebar.))
In C there is a rule that &*(E) is the same as (E) as long as the
constraints for the two operators are met. So in C '&result2[0]'
gives the same results as just 'result2', which is to say it is able
to access any object within the confines of the two-dimensional
array result2.
Incidentally this observation agrees with my usual practice when
calling functions taking a pointer parameter. If at a call site
I want to indicate that the argument is a pointer to a single
element I use an array indexing form, eg, &p[k]. Conversely if
I want to indicate that the argument is a pointer to an element
within a larger array I use an addition form, eg, p+k. I know
that both of these argument expressions allow access to the
entire array, and so are fully interchangeable as far as the
semantics goes; however I think it is useful to distinguish the
two intended meanings, so I normally use different argument forms
in the two cases.
Returning to your question, the expression '&result2[0]+1' is, in
C, the same as 'result2+1', which allows access to all of result2.
In C++, there is AFAICT no rule paralleling the '&*' rule in C.
However, looking at paragraph 3.2 in section 7.6.2.1 (in the C++
document N4860), I believe the same result obtains. The question
is more complicated in C++ because there might be overloading of
operator*(), and perhaps also of operator&(), but presumably those
possibilities aren't in play here. So, I believe that C++ gives
the same result that C does, allowing access to all of result2,
with the disclaimer that my knowledge and understanding of C++
is not what I would call authoritative or necessarily reliable.
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