Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #146638
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Indexing one past the end of array? |
| Date | 2019-10-06 06:36 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86ftk69et7.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <gF6mF.2635984$c8w1.2556225@fx08.am4> <lnwodjvtkz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <874l0moqit.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > >> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes: >> >>> Dear comp.lang.c, >>> >>> I've been reading a thread on LWN[1], notably this quote: >>> >>>> Just some pedantry, but I believe you're allowed to point to the first >>>> element after the end of an array, as long as you don't dereference >>>> that element. Pointer comparisons with such a pointer are supposed to >>>> work, too. >>> >>> Elsewhere, I've read that on embedded systems memory can be allocated >>> right up to the end of memory, and therefore such indexes are invalid >>> (but I cannot remember where). >>> >>> So, is it always legal to calculate one past the end of an array or >>> allocated memory? >>> >>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/278137/ >> >> Yes, it's always legal. The language guarantees it. > > <cut> > >> A compiler needs to do whatever it has to to make this work as >> specified. Allocating an object at the very end of memory doesn't >> necessarily break this, as long as pointer addition and subtraction >> yield the expected results. > > <cut> > >> For example, assume a system with 32-bit addresses and exactly 2**32 >> bytes of addressable memory. Assume an array object >> char buf[100]; >> is allocated starting at address 2**32-100. Then (buf+100) points just >> past the end of the array, and also just past the end of addressable >> memory. As long as evaluating (buf+100)-1 yields a valid pointer to >> buf[99], that's ok. > > A nit: the relational operators (<, >, <=, >=) have to work on the > resulting pointers as well. For example (buf+100)-1 < (buf+100) must be > true, and that's not automatically the case where pointers are > interpreted as unsigned bit patterns. If, however, pointers are signed > 2's complement values, it will all come out in the wash. It took me a while to figure out what you meant by the statement about signed pointers. What I think you mean is that if the signed address of 'buf' is -100, then the comparisons (and arithmetic) all work as required. But if pointers are signed there is still a singularity; it just occurs at a different point in the address space. A 100-byte array starting at 2**31-100 will still have the problem: a pointer past the last element of the array will be less than -- instead of greater than -- a pointer to any element of the array.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Indexing one past the end of array? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-06 04:02 +0800
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-05 13:13 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 22:01 +0100
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-05 14:35 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-05 19:00 -0400
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 08:05 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 06:36 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 16:31 +0100
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-05 17:10 -0400
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 07:40 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-10-05 20:26 +0000
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 16:55 -0700
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-06 15:50 +0200
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-06 17:04 +0200
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-07 13:32 +0000
Re: Indexing one past the end of array? "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-07 17:23 +0200
csiph-web