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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #13526

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

Show all headers | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2011-11-16, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:
>>> On 2011-11-16, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Even if there is a trap representation there, it's not an aliasing issue.
>>>
>>> If you could not alias an object using chars, then no access at all would
>>> be well-defined.
>>   
>> I don't follow your reasoning.

And I still don't.  If, hypothetically, the standard permitted objects
to be aliased using unsigned chars but not signed or plain chars, how
would that imply that "no access at all would be well-defined"?

>> Where does the standard say that you can alias any object with an
>> array of plain or signed char?
>
> 6.5 paragraph 7.  An object can be accessed with an lvalue which
> is of character type.

Ah, thank you, that's one of the clues I was missing.  The other is
6.2.6.1p5 (thanks to James Kuyper for catching that one); that says
explicitly that you can access an object via an lvalue of character
type.

So let's assume that you have an object of type unsigned char with
the value SCHAR_MAX + 1, and you access it as a signed char --
but that representation is a trap representation
for signed char:

    unsigned char u = SCHAR_MAX + 1;
    signed char s = *(signed char*)&u;

My reading is that the behavior is undefined by omission.  6.2.6.1p5
says that storing a non-character trap representation has undefined
behavior; it explicitly excludes character types.  6.5p7 says that
an object shall have its stored value accessed *only* by an lvalue of
certain types, including character types, but that doesn't imply that
the behavior of such an access is defined.  For example, accessing
an int object by an lvalue of of type int is permitted by 6.5p7,
but has undefined behavior if the object holds a trap representation.

If the behavior is defined, what is it?

-- 
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"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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