Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #71336
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Union type punning in C++ |
| Date | 2020-01-14 08:26 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <qvkfhr$ns7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <2e087cbf-8a15-4109-b199-f200487745f6@googlegroups.com> <074aa134-b041-43f8-b44e-f6643eee5645@googlegroups.com> <a7279af6-380a-4939-9a4b-c3b8a4648753@googlegroups.com> <qvja44$ad$1@dont-email.me> <88c1fbf9-e0ab-483e-8ec5-aa43f07146b0@googlegroups.com> |
On 1/14/20 2:44 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 04:47:42 UTC+2, James Kuyper wrote:
...>> On 1/2/20 6:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> struct base
>>> {
>>> int p0;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct object_0
>>> {
>>> base b;
>>> int p0;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct object_1
>>> {
>>> base b;
>>> int p0;
>>> int p1;
>>> };
>>>
>>> union object
>>> {
>>> base b;
>>> object_0 o0;
>>> object_1 o1;
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> object o;
>>
>> I'm in perfect agreement that o.b, o.o0.b and o.o1.b all have the same
>> type, and therefore have layout-compatible types. I'm also in agreement
>> that all three have the same address. The fact that o.o0.b and o.01.b
>> have layout compatible types means that it's perfectly safe to write to
>> o.o0.b.p0, and read from o.o1.b.p0 - the value you read is guaranteed to
>> be the same as the the value that was written, because of 9.2p19.
>>
>> However, no similar conclusion can be derived from the fact that o.b is
>> layout compatible with the other two objects, nor from the fact that it
>> has the same address as they do. If you feel otherwise, please cite the
>> rule that allows it.
>
> So o.b, o.o0.b and o.o1.b are all objects of same type at
> same storage location but writing to one and reading from other
> is still prohibited? There are no volatile or something like that
> in play here, so I am expecting such prohibition to be explicit
> in standard. Both Tim and you seem to say that first member of
> those being an int somehow causes contradiction but the idea does
> not shine thru into my thick skull. :(
To put this in proper perspective, let's start by considering a single
variable.
The C++ standard says that "An instance of each object with automatic
storage duration (3.7.3) is associated with each entry into its
block. Such an object exists and retains its last-stored value during
the execution of the block and while the block is suspended (by a call
of a function or receipt of a signal)." (1.9p7).
I could not locate wording in the C++ standard that says the anything
comparable about objects with other storage durations - which surprises
me. I suspect that I've missed something. For comparison, the C standard
says "An object ... retains its last-stored value throughout its
lifetime." (C2011 6.2.4p4) without restricting that guarantee to objects
with any particular storage duration. For objects with automatic storage
duration, "during the execution of the block and while the block is
suspended" corresponds to the lifetime of that object, so the C and C++
standards agree for such objects.
Retaining their last-stored value is an essential feature of usable
variables. I'm going to go ahead on the assumption that C++ does
actually say this somewhere for other storage durations, and I just
missed it. Alternatively, you can assume that what I'm saying below only
applies to objects with automatic storage duration (which would render
objects with other storage durations essentially unusable).
Implementations of C++ typically store an object in particular locations
in RAM, but that memory location does not always contain the last-stored
value of that object. Often, the last-stored value currently resides
only in one or more registers somewhere. This is allowed by the as-if
rule. When the last-stored value of a variable is needed, it doesn't
matter whether the compiler retrieves that value from memory or from a
register, so long as the location that it retrieves it from does in fact
contain the last-stored value. It's up to the compiler to keep track of
where the last-stored value is currently stored, and so long as it does
so correctly, the as-if rule allows this.
I don't mean to imply that register/memory issues are the entire reason
for the rules I'm discussing. Transfers between memory and register are
allowed precisely because (and only insofar as) the C++ standard fails
to say anything to prevent it. I'm just using such issues as a simple,
easy-to-understand example of the kinds of things governed by these rules.
Here's the key point: the different members of a union are considered to
be distinct objects that just happen to be stored in the same location.
For example, given
union { int i; float f; }u;
an implementation can treat u.i and u.f as if they were distinct
variables, despite the fact that they sit in the same location in
memory. It can keep track of whether u.i is stored in the location
pointed at by &u.i, or in an integer register. It can keep track of
whether u.f is stored in the location pointed at by &u.f or in a
floating point register. However, since it's undefined behavior to read
a different member of a union than the one that was last written to, an
implementation is NOT required to coordinate transfers between u.i and a
register with transfers between u.f and a register. Therefore, if you
write to u.i, that written value might still be in a register at the
time that subsequent code retrieves u.f from memory. Alternatively, if
the value of u.i does get moved to memory, a read of u.f might retrieve
the value last stored in u.f, which is still in a register somewhere.
When more complex objects are in the union, such as objects of struct
type, the ways in which accesses to members of different structs can
interfere with each other get even more complicated.
This anarchy is the normal case for accesses to union members, but
9.2p19 provides an exception to this anarchy for the common initial
sequence of two struct types, so long as those struct types are members
of the same union. If you write a value to a member in the common
initial sequence using one of those two struct types, and read from the
corresponding member of the other struct type, the value read must match
the value written. An implementation is still free to store that value
either in the object itself, or in a register, but it must store and
retrieve that value from the correct location, regardless of which of
the two struct types is used to write it, and regardless of which of the
two struct types is used to read it.
Therefore, you're relying upon the guarantee provided by 9.2p19 in order
to perform such accesses. And the conditions for the applicability of
9.2p19 are not met by o.b.p0, for the reasons I gave above in my earlier
message. Since the common initial sequence is determined entirely by the
membership relationships and types of the relevant objects, and not by
their addresses, the fact that o.b.p0 and o.o0.b.p0 are stored in the
same location does not guarantee that 9.2p19 covers those two objects.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-01 19:24 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 09:36 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-02 03:34 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2020-01-02 12:49 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-02 04:52 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 17:22 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-02 10:26 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2020-01-02 21:54 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 14:49 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-03 17:11 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2020-01-03 17:55 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 09:55 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-03 11:20 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 02:21 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 14:55 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 16:04 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 01:26 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 16:55 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 01:02 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 17:06 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 07:34 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 16:12 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 08:49 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 19:28 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-03 18:54 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 01:25 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 00:28 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 01:41 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 00:52 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 08:08 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 08:34 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 08:43 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 08:20 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 09:25 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 08:25 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 09:25 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 08:27 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 09:36 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 08:41 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 09:49 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 09:01 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 10:02 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 09:19 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 10:38 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-04 12:45 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 12:00 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 14:22 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 14:46 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 10:32 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 10:43 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-03 18:55 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-08 09:40 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-08 13:23 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-08 22:41 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-08 22:52 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-09 12:59 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-09 13:32 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mister2U@honorific.org - 2020-01-10 12:28 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-10 14:02 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mister2U@honorific.org - 2020-01-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-10 19:18 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-10 15:41 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 12:01 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 07:05 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 23:53 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2020-01-12 01:41 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 19:00 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2020-01-13 17:32 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mister2U@honorific.org - 2020-01-11 11:53 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 13:20 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mister2U@honorific.org - 2020-01-11 12:33 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 14:28 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-01-11 10:48 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-01-11 11:05 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mister2U@honorific.org - 2020-01-11 11:55 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2020-01-02 21:12 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2020-01-03 20:01 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-02 23:23 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ peter koch <peter.koch.larsen@gmail.com> - 2020-01-02 12:39 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-02 15:39 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-02 16:58 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-02 17:55 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 00:40 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-03 14:04 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-03 15:24 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 14:34 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-03 22:59 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-04 00:11 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-04 00:21 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-04 00:26 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-04 16:51 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 18:47 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 19:07 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 06:47 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 07:38 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-01-03 17:06 +0000
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 11:05 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-03 22:37 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-11 07:10 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-11 10:23 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-13 09:01 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-13 11:03 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-13 12:48 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-13 14:15 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-13 21:47 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-13 23:44 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-14 08:26 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-14 07:30 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-14 09:11 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-14 21:52 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-14 23:15 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-21 02:03 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-11 07:28 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 20:40 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-12 20:16 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 17:28 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-12 21:53 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-01-13 18:50 +0100
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 16:21 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-13 08:57 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 16:27 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-14 07:05 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 20:58 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-21 03:47 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-15 01:22 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-15 08:04 -0500
Re: Union type punning in C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-15 09:38 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-15 11:01 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-13 08:37 -0800
Re: Union type punning in C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 16:29 -0800
csiph-web