Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: [union] Pointers to inherited structs are valid ? |
| Date | 2013-01-21 13:32 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnpq0y5iil.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <kdi97a$32l$1@dont-email.me> <0.3967aeb7bf6a1530832e.20130121025322GMT.87fw1v6ycd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kdiibb$adj$1@dont-email.me> <0.daa800410407a948d170.20130121163138GMT.874nia7b11.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kdk3mf$td7$1@dont-email.me> |
Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I agree that his post does look that way and that C does allow for
> that. There's a subtle bit here, though: If we're discussing a
> program, once that program invokes undefined behaviour, anything goes.
> However, if I'm not mistaken, with Windows NT, if you have a pointer
> value which does not point to an object, the program will continue to
> operate as per the C semantics until such a time (if ever) as that
> pointer might be used for indirect access.
I (mostly) agree with that.
> So it is imprecise to say that such a value has a trap representation,
> because the behaviour is still well-defined. Otherwise, the last
> sentence of N1570's 6.5.3.2p4 is redundant:
>
> "If an invalid value has been assigned to the pointer, the behavior
> of the unary * operator is undefined.102)"
No. Accessing an object with a trap representation has undefined
behavior. What that means is that the behavior is not defined *by the C
standard*; see N1370 3.4.3, the definion of the phrase "undefined
behavior". Another entity can certainly define behavior for such
accesses.
For example, (void*)0x0000000C is very likely a trap representation
under Windows NT. The behavior of applying unary "*" to that value is
undefined, in the sense that the C standard does not define its
behavior. Windows NT can define the behavior if it likes; that doesn't
cause it to cease being a trap representation.
> But anyway, a pointer value pointing to no object can still be
> "trapped" by Windows during indirection and can still provide useful
> information to a Windows debugger. It just does not precisely match
> C's trap representation, for behavioural differences.
Yes, it does.
[...]
> Take Windows NT's 'IRP' structure. It has a sub-member called
> Tail.Overlay.DriverContext', which is an array of 4 'void *'. This is
> one of _very_few_ places where a driver can associate information with
> an IRP, and is extremely valuable for that reason.
>
> The implementation defines the results of casting an
> appropriately-sized integer value to a 'void *', so such an integer
> can be "passed" via this mechanism. We _certainly_ would not wish to
> believe that this results in undefined behaviour, so we certainly
> would not wish to believe that such a result is a trap representation.
I'm afraid that what you wish is irrelevant. It has undefined behavior.
A program that depends on the behavior of some construct whose behavior
is not defined by the C standard is not portable. There's nothing wrong
with that; sometimes you *need* to write non-portable code, code that
depends on guarantees made by a given environment but not by the
language standard.
Don't forget that "undefined behavior" does not* mean "this will crash".
It means exactly what the C standard says it means in 3.4.3: "behavior,
upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous
data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements".
A given construct causing Microsoft's debugger to consistently display a
"NULL_CLASS_PTR_DEREFERENCE" message is perfectly consistent with that
construct having undefined behavior as defined by the C standard. If
you don't understand that, you don't understand undefined behavior.
>>> B: "Here are Microsoft's documented [non-C] trap values..."
>>
>> If this was Geoff, he correctly called then "trap representation"
>> (rather than values) and he referred to "they" meaning the C committee.
>> He was talking at C trap representations not "[non-C] trap values".
>>
>
> This was in regards to the lower part of his post where he
> specifically says "Microsoft documents their compiler trap values".
Here's Geoff's article:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/eeb8c91036919e10?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
The "compiler trap values" that Microsoft documents are not the same
thing as C "trap representations" (that's probably why they have
a *different name*, and Geoff merely said that they're *analagous"
to C trap representations. For example, "Clean Memory" is filled
with 0xCD bytes, which can easily represent a valid value for some
type (certainly for unsigned char).
>>> 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."
>>
>> I think you missed Geoff's point.
>
> I doubt it.
If you think Geoff was using the phrase "null pointer" or "trap
representation" to refer to anything other than a null pointer
or trap representation as defined by the C standard, then yes,
you missed Geoff's point.
"I see a Microsoft debugger catch these things and call them [non-C]
null pointers." -- I don't believe you have seen that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
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