Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs |
| Date | 2016-11-02 15:47 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87a8dhlw6g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <87oa1zgzw0.fsf@starless.ames.family> <87k2cngz0i.fsf@starless.ames.family> <87lgx3md9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87pome2rqn.fsf@starless.invalid> |
Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:
<snip>
> struct base_type
> {
> uint8_t type_tag;
> ...
> };
>
> struct derived_type
> {
> struct base_type base;
> // more specific data here
> ...
> };
>
> struct more_derived_type
> {
> struct derived_type base;
> // even more specific data here
> ...
> };
>
> I find many references to this idiom, often asking whether the language
> standard supports it. Unfortunately I can only find answers referring
> to the fact that the 'base' members above are guaranteed by C (and
> consequentially for PODs by C++) to have the same address as each value
> of their containing struct types.
Right, but address is a little vague. A C pointer is an address with a
type and, whist the offset of the first (non-bitfield) member of a
struct is guaranteed to be zero, a pointer to the struct and a pointer
to the first member will have different types. This matters because the
effective type rules you are concerned with are all about types. The
address is not really the issue.
> That's fine but I believe that there is another aspect to be considered
> when using this idiom, namely aliasing. Regarding this aspect I find
> the following reference in both C99 (I refer to draft N 1256) and C11
> (as of draft N 1570) in paragraph 6.5.7:
>
> <quote N 1256>
>
> An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue
> expression that has one of the following types:
>
> ...
>
> - an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned
> types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a
> subaggregate or contained union)
>
> ...
>
> </quote N 1256>
>
> When using the idiom mentioned above it is often necessary to cast a
> pointer from a derived type to a base type (upcast) or vice (downcast).
>
> As a use case consider a library defining the base type and allowing for
> the user to define derived types using the idiom above. When there are
> callbacks from the lib to user code, usually there are downcast in user
> code necessary to restore the more detailed information from the derived
> types (that the lib code doesn't know), i.e. something along the lines:
>
> void downcaster (struct base_type* sth)
> {
> struct derived_type* detailed = 0;
> struct more_derived_type* more_detailed = 0;
>
> if (sth->type_tag == DERIVED_ID)
> {
> detailed = (struct derived_type*) sth; // OK
> }
> else if (sth->type_tag == MORE_DERIVED_ID)
> {
> more_detailed = (struct more_derived_type*) sth; // OK
> }
> ...
> }
>
> My understanding of section 6.5.7 is that neither 'detailed' nor
> 'more_detailed' alias the object pointed to by 'sth'.
No, they are all aliases.
> On the other hand when user code calls library APIs it will be necessary
> to upcast pointers, as the library API will only know about base types.
>
> void upcaster (struct derived_type* d, struct more_derived_type* md)
> {
> struct base_type* b1 = (struct base_type*) d; // NOK
> struct base_type* b2 = (struct base_type*) md; // NOK
>
> struct base_type* b3 = & (d->base);
> struct base_type* b4 = & (md->base->base);
>
> call_lib_api (b[1234]);
What's b?
> ...
> }
>
> I understand paragraph 6.5.7 so that 'b1' is aliasing 'd' and 'b2' is
> aliasing 'md', while 'b3' and'b4' are obviously ok.
They are all aliases and they are all in some vague sense OK.
The key issue is not what aliases what, but what will go wrong when the
compiler assumes that two references do not alias a signle object when
in fact they do. Your sketch has no cases where that is a problem (as
far as I can see) and I think such code is usually OK.
Do you have an example of something that someone has said is a problem
that is worrying you?
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-01 13:15 +0100
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-01 13:34 +0100
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 15:27 +0000
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-02 09:47 +0100
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 15:47 +0000
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 00:24 +0100
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 21:42 -0800
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2016-11-03 18:53 -0700
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 09:56 -0700
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 21:53 +0100
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-01 11:41 -0400
Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-02 09:55 +0100
"Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-21 16:59 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-21 07:32 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-21 11:15 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-21 08:35 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:42 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-22 06:50 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 16:07 +0000
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-22 12:02 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 23:36 +0000
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-22 16:24 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-11-22 22:21 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-23 08:31 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:01 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-23 12:05 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 23:23 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-22 16:02 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-22 14:13 -0800
Re: container_of() macro Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-23 01:10 +0100
Re: container_of() macro <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2016-11-22 20:10 -0800
Re: container_of() macro "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-23 15:10 -0800
Re: container_of() macro David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-23 11:31 +0100
Re: container_of() macro Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:07 +0300
Re: container_of() macro supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-23 08:41 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 00:14 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 17:23 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 18:48 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-04 12:17 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 22:15 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-04 15:06 -0500
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:31 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-23 13:39 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 15:10 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-23 15:13 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 18:29 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-24 11:41 +0300
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 03:29 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-24 17:37 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 09:55 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 15:22 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-28 18:18 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 04:48 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:28 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 08:26 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:13 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-12 16:44 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-13 02:18 +0100
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 09:47 -0800
Re: "Object-oriented programming in C" [was: Re: Aliasing and subtyping structs] Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 10:14 -0800
csiph-web