Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char) to (char) dangerous?

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char) to (char) dangerous?
Date	2011-11-16 11:27 -0800
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnd3crzx48.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References	<j9ugaj$q30$4@speranza.aioe.org> <20111115125004.175@kylheku.com> <ja0pub$bb4$1@speranza.aioe.org> <20111116094733.821@kylheku.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2011-11-16, tim <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> THIS IS NOT A HOMEWORK

(no need to shout)

> In that case, ...
>
> If the unsigned char * value is already well defined and everything, it is
> safe to convert it to char *, and even to access the memory. In C, this
> is not considered to be invalid aliasing. Any object can be accessed
> as an array of characters, plain, signed or unsigned.

Does the standard guarantee that?  I was unable to find anything
that permits treating arbitrary objects as arrays of anything other
than unsigned char.

C99 6.1.6.1p4:

    Values stored in non-bit-field objects of any other object type
    consist of n * CHAR_BIT bits, where n is the size of an object
    of that type, in bytes. The value may be copied into an object
    of type unsigned char [n] (e.g., by memcpy); the resulting set
    of bytes is called the *object representation& of the value.

C99 6.2.6.2p1:

    For unsigned integer types other than unsigned char, the bits of the
    object representation shall be divided into two groups: value bits
    and padding bits (there need not be any of the latter).

p2:

    Which of these [sign and magnitude, two's complement, ones'
    complement] applies is implementation-defined, as is whether
    the value with sign bit 1 and all value bits zero (for the
    first two), or with sign bit and all value bits 1 (for ones’
    complement), is a trap representation or a normal value.

As far as I can tell, given that CHAR_BIT==8, it would be legal for an
implementation to have plain char (if it's signed) and signed char have
a range of -127 .. +127, with the extra representation being a trap
representation.  It would even be legal for signed char to have padding
bits, possibly leading to even more trap representation; given the
requirements for SCHAR_MIN and SCHAR_MAX, that's possible only if
CHAR_BIT > 8.

I seriously doubt that any real-world implementation takes advantage
of this.

I have a vague memory of a statement that plain and signed char cannot
have trap representations, but I can't confirm that from the standard.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? tim <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-11-15 19:59 +0000
  Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-15 20:51 +0000
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? tim <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-11-16 16:55 +0000
      Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-16 17:54 +0000
        Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 11:27 -0800
          Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-16 19:49 +0000
            Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 11:52 -0800
              Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-16 20:06 +0000
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 14:55 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-25 04:42 -0800
              Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-16 15:15 -0500
          Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-16 15:24 -0500
            Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 12:41 -0800
              Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-16 16:02 -0500
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 13:23 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 15:32 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 17:02 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-11-16 21:38 -0500
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 19:22 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 23:08 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 23:46 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-17 09:15 -0800
                Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-25 04:54 -0800
          Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-16 21:44 +0100
      Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-11-16 13:17 -0500
  Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-16 00:58 -0800
  Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-16 01:36 -0800
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-16 13:28 +0100
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 08:14 -0800
      Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-16 12:03 -0700
  Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-16 08:58 -0800
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-16 19:04 +0100
      Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-11-16 10:05 -0800
      Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-16 11:19 -0800
        Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-16 20:58 +0100
          Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-18 15:37 +0200
            Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-18 19:41 +0100
              Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-18 19:43 +0100
  Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi> - 2011-11-17 19:09 +0000
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-11-17 11:44 -0800
    Re: when is typecasting (unsigned char*) to (char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-17 13:16 -0800
  Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 02:22 -0500
    Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Harald van Dijk <haraldvdijk@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 12:14 -0800
    Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-23 00:37 -0800
      Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-01-24 15:10 +0100
      Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-26 08:55 -0800
        Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-26 11:32 -0800
          Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-31 21:57 -0800
            Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 01:12 -0500
    Re: when is casting (unsigned char*) to (signed char*) dangerous? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-26 08:48 -0800

csiph-web