Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? |
| Date | 2013-01-21 00:05 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <kdiibb$adj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <ln1udf979x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kdhjs3$s8d$1@dont-email.me> <0.0b1231aec01398fe5573.20130120235839GMT.87libn76fk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kdi97a$32l$1@dont-email.me> <0.3967aeb7bf6a1530832e.20130121025322GMT.87fw1v6ycd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
On 1/20/2013 21:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 1/20/2013 18:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 1/20/2013 10:57, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> Which of these most closely resembles the pointer value 0x0000000C in >>>>>> this Windows scenario?: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. A trap representation for some pointer type, invoking UB when read >>>>>> 2. A valid value for some pointer type; pointing to an object >>>>>> 3. A null pointer; pointing to no object, invoking UB when dereferenced >>>>>> >>>>>> If it doesn't compare equal to 'NULL', then it doesn't appear to match >>>>>> any of these. But if we can fuzz our way from Standard theory to >>>>>> real-world practice, we might note some similarities to #3. >>>>> >>>>> It could easily be #1. For example, if a type `struct foo` has a >>>>> member `bar` at offset 12 (0xC), and a `struct foo*` object `ptr` >>>>> that has a null pointer value, then `&(ptr->bar)` could easily have >>>>> a representation that looks like 0x0000000C. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It could be #1, but it isn't #1 in this Windows scenario. Using such >>>> a pointer value doesn't yield undefined behaviour until it's >>>> dereferenced. It'll still compare as unequal with valid pointer >>>> values, can still be assigned to a pointer, etc. >>> >>> All of that seems to be entirely consistent with #1. >> >> I made the mistake of saying "undefined behaviour" there, instead of >> "unexpected behaviour." My point was that the unexpected only >> manifests from a _dereference_, rather than a _read_. > > How far back? Probably 12 posts back from this one I'm typing now; sorry. > In how many posts must I substitute "unexpected > behaviour" for "undefined behaviour" in order to determine your meaning? 5 of mine; sorry. > Have you said what "unexpected behaviour" is? Not explicitly, no. I thought it would be obvious that it was the context of a Windows debugger notifying the programmer, since Geoff had just discussed that. > Does it depend on who is > doing the expecting? Not really. If the program operates as expected without the debugger interrupting, that's probably commonly desired by different programmers. > Does any meaning survive after addressing these > questions? > Yes, I think so. Having seen these answers, do you? :) >>> Talking about whether something is UB in "this Windows scenario" looks >>> very odd to me because the term UB is defined by the language, not the >>> implementation. If the language says something is UB then it is and you >>> can't conclude from the behaviour of an implementation that it isn't. >>> >>> <snip> >> >> Agreed, and it's supposed to be odd. This discussion is pretty >> useless though, because no matter how many times I try to suggest >> considering "C definitions" versus "practiced usage," nobody quite >> seems to; possibly because the latter is uninteresting to them, or >> because this Windows case is uninteresting to them, or because I make >> mistakes like the above without qualifying each term as "not to be >> confused with the C definition". I thought it would be an easy >> discussion; it isn't. My mistake. > > But you seem to make the same mistake when explicitly using C's terms > and without any of the "unexpected/undefined" madness above. E.g.: > > | For example, if a free'd pointer becomes 0x0000000C, in C terminology, > | it'd be an "indeterminate value." But, using C terminology again, > | it'd be an "unspecified value" rather than a "trap representation", as > | the value can be read and passed around. > > This suggest that you think it can't be a trap representation because it > can be read and passed around. A trap representation is nothing more > than a representation that does not denote a valid value for the type > in question. The effect of using it can be entirely benign. > I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Would it be best to surround every paragraph of every response with context, to prevent misunderstanding? In that quote, I thought it was obvious that this was in the context of using a Microsoft debugger, where the behaviour would agree with the semantics of an "unspecified value"; not warning the programmer during a read of the value (which it _could_). In the summary below, I hope it's clear that a recurring theme was to establish 0x0000000C as some kind of a trap value, so the quote above doesn't match with that without deciding that it needs additional context. Here's a summary of how the conversation has gone, from my perspective. All quotes are fictional, and names have been omitted: Me: "If an uninitialized 'unsigned char' can have a trap representation, then...[something]" A: "Whatever it has isn't a trap representation, you idiot. It might not even have a value." Me: "Why wouldn't it have a value? Is it because it might not successfully translate? Ok, what about in this code example where it does translate?" B: "What would you say it has?" Me: "An [C] indeterminate value and a magic property \"uninitialized\". Here's some history, since you asked what I would say..." B: "Here are Microsoft's documented [non-C] trap values..." Me: "Nice summary! Say, isn't there another one, 0x0000000C, as a [non-C] trap for [non-C] null pointers? I don't remember..." C: "Oh no, that wouldn't be a [C] null pointer." Me: "Yes, well I was talking about B's [non-C] trap values. I see a Microsoft debugger catch these things and call them [non-C] null pointers." C: "A [C] null pointer isn't a [C] trap representation. Does this thing behave like a [C] null pointer?" Me (intended): "Well it only behaves badly upon dereferencing." C: "If it's not a [C] null pointer, then it shouldn't be called one, and it's off-topic." D: "There could be multiple [C] null pointer representations." Me (missing C's cue to drop it): "That could be. Maybe the bits have something to do with useful debug-info, such as a 'free'd pointer." C: "That seems unlikely, due to pass-by-value. We're still not talking about [C] null pointers if it doesn't behave like a [C] null pointer." Me: "Agreed; it doesn't match. So what's the closest thing, behaviour-wise? It seems like a [C] null pointer, in some ways." C: "It could be closest to a [C] trap representation. It seems pretty straight-forward." Me (intended): "Well for those who observe 0x0000000C in a Microsoft debugger, the program behaves well until it's dereferenced, so it's not closest to a [C] trap representation, but to a [C] null pointer." You: "It could be closest to a [C] trap representation. And don't say \"undefined behavour\" if you don't mean it." Me: "Oops. True." >> And agreed again; we all [ought to] know: >> >>> All behaviours are consistent with UB. >> >> Thankfully, 3 people have now made it abundantly clear that comparing >> C terminology to subjects outside of C is not going to be fruitful. :) > > Are you not using C's terms in the quote above? > Yes I was, but it only makes for confusion, so I'll try to avoid that. -- - Shao Miller -- "Thank you for the kind words; those are the kind of words I like to hear. Cheerily," -- Richard Harter
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Maciej Labanowicz <m.labanowicz@gmail.com> - 2013-01-01 03:45 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-01-01 17:59 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-01 21:06 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 10:45 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 19:56 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 08:28 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-03 15:31 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 20:55 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 21:00 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 12:56 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-04 12:59 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 20:00 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 00:47 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-06 23:06 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 04:03 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 08:25 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-13 10:34 -0800
Re: Off-Topic: Irritating Posting Patterns Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 16:00 -0500
Re: Off-Topic: Irritating Posting Patterns Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-14 12:27 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-07 07:41 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-12 14:52 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 15:19 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-14 12:04 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 18:52 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-16 00:01 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 05:43 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 09:01 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 18:32 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 17:32 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-16 20:57 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-17 07:55 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-17 16:47 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-18 08:41 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-18 15:53 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-18 17:38 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-19 02:31 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-18 23:15 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-19 20:03 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 02:19 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-20 07:57 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 15:25 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-20 23:58 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 21:30 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-21 02:53 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 00:05 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-21 16:31 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 14:07 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-21 21:05 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 17:13 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-21 16:11 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-22 04:59 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 01:05 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-22 14:53 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 08:38 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 20:53 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-22 00:58 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 08:40 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-22 23:32 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-23 23:21 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 04:53 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-25 10:49 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 08:25 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-22 23:41 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-21 13:32 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 17:46 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 07:43 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 16:07 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 14:15 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 14:31 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 21:32 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 17:17 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 19:49 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-23 18:55 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-24 11:01 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 14:11 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-22 17:51 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-20 16:48 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 21:33 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 09:23 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-20 17:07 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 22:20 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-20 22:02 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 07:00 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-01-21 08:17 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2013-01-21 14:13 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-21 14:12 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-21 08:20 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 20:41 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 12:37 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-21 12:17 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 16:33 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-21 15:50 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 19:45 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-22 00:18 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-22 08:01 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-18 23:02 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-19 01:28 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-19 12:08 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-21 09:27 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 12:46 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-21 20:48 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-21 18:52 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-22 04:07 +0000
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-21 23:15 -0500
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-16 10:59 -0800
Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 10:34 -0800
csiph-web