Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #20495

Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:10:42 AM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> 
> > John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On May 3, 11:05 pm, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> So if you use a particular union access member... for a particular
> >> union in memory, then you should always access that particular union-
> >> variable, with the same member?
> >>
> >> Is that the only intended use?
> >
> > I believe that is the intention.  I couldn't find relevant text
> > in the Rationale.
> 
> If you read the Defect Report (sorry, I don't know the
> number offhand) that prompted the famous "type punning"
> footnote, I think you'll find that the type punning use
> cases were expected and intended all along, eg, even in
> C89/C90.  I presume they were important to make defined
> because a significant amount of pre-ANSI C code relied
> on them working.
> 
> 
> >> In particular: is it a misuse of unions, to use them in order to
> >> enable different memory-accesses (word, byte, etc.) to the same
> >> portion of memory???? I have (mis)used it like this in above posts
> >> quite often.
> >> Is that strictly wrong?
> >
> > I think there might be an "out" for accessing any type as an
> > array of unsigned char this way, but I believe that in general
> > this is strictly wrong.  [snip]
> 
> How do you reconcile this view with the statement in
> clear and plain English about how union member access
> works to accomplish type punning?  I think anyone who
> takes the time to read through the relevant sections
> defining the semantics involved will find accessing a
> union member is defined irrespective of which member
> was last set (although the result may depend on
> unspecified values and consequently undefined behavior
> because of trap representations, but the access itself
> is well-defined).

********************************
Draft ANSI Standard

3.3.2.3 Structure and union members
[...]
Semantics
[... 3rd para]
   With one exception, if a member of a union object is accessed after
a value has been stored in a different member of the object, the
behavior is implementation-defined./33/ One special guarantee is made
in order to simplify the use of unions: If a union contains several
structures that share a common initial sequence, and if the union
object currently contains one of these structures, it is permitted to
inspect the common initial part of any of them.  Two structures share
a common initial sequence if corresponding members have compatible
types for a sequence of one or more initial members.
********************

I don't think "implementation defined" is the same as well defined. They could return zero every time if they wanted.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 10:04 -0700
  Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2012-05-03 17:38 +0000
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 10:50 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-03 11:09 -0700
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 11:18 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-03 11:24 -0700
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 11:35 -0700
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 11:56 -0700
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-03 12:16 -0700
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 12:20 -0700
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-03 12:39 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 17:51 -0700
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-05-08 09:10 +0200
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 05:31 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2012-05-03 18:11 +0000
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 11:29 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2012-05-03 19:19 +0000
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 13:31 -0700
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 14:18 -0700
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 15:20 -0700
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-05-04 01:47 +0100
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 17:47 -0700
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 17:45 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-05-08 00:43 -0700
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 06:17 -0700
  Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-03 12:46 -0700
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 13:35 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-03 14:05 -0700
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 14:11 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-03 15:02 -0700
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:10 -0700
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-05-08 00:49 -0700
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-05-08 06:37 -0400
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 07:49 -0700
                Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 07:25 -0700
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-05-08 09:46 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-05-03 18:24 -0400
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:24 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2012-05-03 21:17 +0000
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:28 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-03 15:54 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Old Wolf <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> - 2012-05-06 22:32 -0700
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-05-07 08:26 +0200
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:31 -0700
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-05-03 23:18 +0200
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-05-03 15:58 -0700
  Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-04 00:25 -0400
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-05-03 22:28 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-05-04 07:33 -0400
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 19:20 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:50 -0700
    Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 18:42 -0700
      Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-07 23:45 -0400
        Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-07 23:01 -0700
          Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-08 06:28 -0400
            Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-08 06:37 -0400
              Re: List of undefined behaviour and other sneeky bugs Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 06:19 -0700

csiph-web