Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #126925
| From | Manfred <noname@invalid.add> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? |
| Date | 2018-02-21 14:07 +0100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <p6jqts$1fak$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <f5234659-1e2c-4e92-b16f-3068786a5f30@googlegroups.com> <lnsh9vmv35.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <2dc98694-34c7-4c1a-ac2d-8b82ca95369e@googlegroups.com> <BG5jC.57834$9z2.31034@fx43.iad> <ec78cf65-4533-46eb-96cf-d056c989765c@googlegroups.com> |
On 2/21/2018 8:07 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:27:55 PM UTC-6, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/20/18 2:52 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>>> Given that K&R clearly shows that objects of arbitrary type are supposed
>>> to be fully accessible via character-type pointer, I think it would be
>>> absurd to suggest that the second shouldn't be defined. Since a pointer
>>> to an aggregate, suitably converted, is the same as a pointer to its first
>>> member or element, however, I don't see anything that would distinguish
>>> the pointer yielded by the decay of foo[0] from the pointer yielded by
>>> converting foo to a void* and then an unsigned char*.
>>
>> Yes, there is a special exemption for looking at an object of any type
>> as a character array, but that does NOT provide a general out for taking
>> a '2d array' and addressing it as a 1d array.
>>
>> Take your example above and change unsigned char to unsigned int, and
>> you have lost that specific exemption, and ran into the domain of
>> undefined behavior. Yes, unless the implementation has taken specific
>> steps to keep if from working, if is very likely to work, but that can
>> be the sort of thing that undefined behavior does.
>
> Looking through C89 draft, I see nothing to suggest that the pointer
> arithmetic rules for character types are in any way special compared
> with those for other types. The rationale notes that code expects to
> be able to treat objects as though they are arrays of character types,
> but I see nothing within the text of the Standard that would justify
> that unless it were implied by other aspects of how pointer arithmetic
> works.
In my understanding, this would be implied by the definition of
representation of types: 6.2.6.1 p2 ("... objects are composed of
contiguous sequences of one or more bytes ...") together with p4 ("Two
values ... with the same object representation compare equal ...", which
is a definition of object identity)
In cases involving pointers which do not identify recognizable
> objects of static or automatic duration, the rules about pointers to
> structures and unions would suffice to describe how things must behave.
>
> Given, for example:
>
> int test1(struct s45 *p, int i)
> {
> int *ip = p->arr[0];
> ip = ((struct s20*)ip)->arr;
> return ip[i];
> }
>
> int testIt(int x)
> {
> union { struct s45 v45; struct s20 v20; }
> u = {0};
> return test1(&u.v45, x);
> }
>
> The behavior of test3 would be described by the Standard for values of x
> up to 20, since it specifies that the address of u.v45.arr[0] is the same
> as the address of u.v45, which is in turn the same as the address of
> u.v20. A compiler processing test1 may have no way of knowing that
> testIt declares a union type, but that shouldn't matter. A compiler could
> generate the same code for test1 without having to know or care about whether
> it's receiving a pointer to a stand-alone structure object, a structure that
> is within a union, or a region of allocated storage, and I've seen no
> indication that the authors of C89 expected or intended to encourage
> compilers to do otherwise.
>
> If the behavior of testIt would be defined under C89 for values of x up to
> 20, and I see no reason the equivalence of pointers to aggregates and
> their members wouldn't suffice to define it, is there any reason it would
> not be defined if the assignment to ip were omitted (leaving it with the
> directly-assigned address of p->arr[0])? What if the variable ip were
> omitted and the lvalue expression were p->arr[0][i]? Is there anything in
> C89 that would suggest that pointers carry with them information about
> their provenance?
>
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? lee@ansync.com - 2018-02-15 17:20 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2018-02-15 22:15 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-16 08:44 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2018-02-16 11:47 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-16 13:00 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-19 12:25 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-19 13:21 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2018-02-19 15:26 -0600
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-19 13:59 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-19 14:38 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-19 15:21 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-19 15:59 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-19 17:11 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-20 09:17 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-20 07:58 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-20 18:21 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-20 09:25 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-20 11:52 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-20 22:27 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-20 23:07 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2018-02-21 14:07 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-21 09:02 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-21 09:50 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-21 12:46 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-21 13:09 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-21 15:15 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-21 15:51 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-21 17:06 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-21 17:46 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 00:18 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-21 22:14 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-21 11:39 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-21 14:59 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-21 22:14 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 00:50 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-22 07:22 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 12:40 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-22 13:00 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 13:48 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-02-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-21 23:05 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-21 23:39 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-22 10:39 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 13:20 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2018-02-23 00:30 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2018-02-16 20:05 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? lee@ansync.com - 2018-02-16 11:14 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-19 11:30 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:01 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-19 11:08 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-19 17:16 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-21 23:16 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-22 00:25 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-22 07:41 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-02-24 13:24 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-25 12:07 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-25 18:34 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-26 08:21 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-26 22:22 -0500
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-27 09:16 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-27 08:48 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-28 10:24 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-28 09:03 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-28 22:31 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-28 15:19 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-01 12:37 +0100
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-03-01 11:03 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-01 11:22 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 11:48 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 15:11 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 19:53 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 21:27 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 00:52 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 01:54 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 06:11 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-03-01 12:31 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-01 13:15 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 14:55 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-03-03 02:19 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 03:03 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-25 15:36 -0800
Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-02-26 10:17 -0800
csiph-web