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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #29968

Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ?

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ?
Date 2013-01-11 14:04 -0800
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lntxqnjs1a.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References <fda72f2b-df83-40c1-b160-7002d26c11df@googlegroups.com> <0b6510c5-c860-41e8-80e6-9856f6145d7f@googlegroups.com> <kcmfql$bkc$1@dont-email.me> <lna9sflmjj.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kcpj52$lv9$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw


Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/11/2013 11:19, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> MUDFLAP can diagnose stuff that's permitted by C90, such as warning you
>>> that an index used for iteration has gone too far.  Usually you want to
>>> index one-past an array, at most.  Do the 'for' loops have any problems?
>>
>> As I'm sure you know, it's legal to construct a pointer one element
>> past the end of an array, but not to dererence it.  Constructing a
>> pointer before the beginning of an array or more than one element
>> past the end of it, or deferencing a pointer one past the end of it,
>> has undefined behavior.  I'm not aware of any relevant changes in
>> this area from C90 to C99 to C11.
>>
>> Are you saying that Mudflap complains about stuff that's legal *and
>> has defined behavior* in C90?  If it complained about something
>> like this:
>>
>>      int arr[N];
>>      int *ptr;
>>      for (ptr = arr; ptr < arr + N; ptr ++) {
>>          /* ... */
>>      }
>>
>> that would IMHO be a serious bug in Mudflap.
>>
>> (I haven't analyzed the posted code, but from the discussion I don't
>> think that's what's going on.)
>
> Nah, I tried to be careful and chose to type "index" instead of "point". 
>   The code I was criticizing used both an integer index as well as a 
> pointer.  Their pointer would never point more than one past the array, 
> but their integer would index two past the array.  That seems to be 
> permitted by C90.

It's permitted (in all versions of the language) for a object
of an integer type to have any value in the range of that type.
That has nothing at all to do with arrays; there's no association
(that a compiler can detect) between a given integer value and
indices into some array object.

That is, unless you actually use the integer value as an index into
a particular array.  In that case, exactly the same rules apply as
for pointers, because the indexing operation is defined in terms
of pointer arithmetic.

Concretely:

    int arr[10] = { 0 };
    int i;
    for (i = 0; i < 10; i += 3) {
        arr[i] = 42;
    }

In successive iterations of the loop, i takes on the values 0, 3,
6, and 9.  *After* the loop, i==12, which is a perfectly valid value
for an object of type int.  Evaluating `arr[i]` after the loop would
have undefined behavior, but the program doesn't do that so there's
no problem.  There could be problems if i iterates past INT_MAX,
but it doesn't do that either.

> I seem to recall some bit about this situation being easily detectable 
> and reportable as a bonus diagnostic, perhaps in the hopes of alerting 
> the programmer that there's a better way to write their loop without 
> stepping out of bounds, conceptually.

What would such a diagnostic look like?

    Warning: `i' exceeds the bounds of `arr', so evaluating `arr[i]'
        would have undefined behavior, but that never happens so I'm not
        sure what I'm warning you about.

A similar snippet using pointers *would* cause undefined behavior,
and would be worthy of a warning (though I can't quite persuade
gcc to generate one):

    int arr[10] = { 0 };
    int *ptr;
    for (ptr = arr; ptr < arr + 10; ptr += 3) {
        *ptr = 42;
    }
    return 0;

because it actually constructs the invalid pointer value.

Or am I missing something?

-- 
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


Thread

[MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-09 07:26 -0800
  Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-01-09 11:30 -0500
  Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-01-09 11:58 -0500
    Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-09 12:27 -0600
    Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-09 11:22 -0800
  Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 14:39 -0500
  Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-10 02:40 -0800
    Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 08:31 -0500
      Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 08:49 -0500
        Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-10 06:48 -0800
          Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 10:33 -0500
      Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-11 08:19 -0800
        Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 12:46 -0500
          Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-11 14:04 -0800
            Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-11 22:42 +0000
              Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-12 01:44 +0000
            Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 19:30 -0500
              Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 20:11 -0500
              Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-12 01:17 +0000
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 20:46 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-12 03:14 +0000
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-12 14:17 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-12 18:02 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-12 15:13 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 16:36 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-13 15:39 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 19:17 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-13 16:57 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 20:50 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-13 19:08 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 00:00 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-14 21:21 +0000
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 17:50 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-14 01:23 +0000
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 21:04 -0500
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-13 19:13 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-14 21:37 +0000
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-11 18:28 -0800
              Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-01-11 18:40 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-12 04:30 -0500
    Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-10 14:37 +0000
      Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-10 06:51 -0800
        Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-10 07:41 -0800
          Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-01-10 16:55 +0000
          Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 17:41 -0500
            Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-11 03:03 -0800
              Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? m.labanowicz@gmail.com - 2013-01-11 04:14 -0800
                Re: [MUDFLAP] Is sizeof(ARRAY[0]) equivalent to sizeof(*ARRAY) ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-01-11 08:32 -0500

csiph-web