when I define
int R[99];
and then later access it with
x=R[r];C[x]=7;
....
but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
becomes unpredictable.
Is there a way to prevent this ?
Is there a program or debugger or compiler which
checks the array indices before executing the command and
eventually issues an error-warning when the index is out of range ?
Nov 14 '05
26  1856 
"Ricardo Gibert" <no**********@c ox.net> writes: "Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.or g> wrote in message
news:ln******** ****@nuthaus.mi b.org...
[...] No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
representations where this isn't the case.)
The idea that, "There might be some exotic implementation where this
isn't the case," hadn't occurred to me. I can't imagine what it
would be like. Hmmm.
I was thinking vaguely of something involving padding bits, for
example, where INT_MAX and UINT_MAX are both 2**31-1 (perhaps because
the underlying hardware doesn't support unsigned integer arithmetic).
It's unlikely in real life, and I'm not even sure whether it would
cause the specified results.
[...] But I'd still be more comfortable with
assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
For an assert() or any code that is serious about being readable for
that matter, your way is much better.
(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
place).
On the other hand, if the more obscure form results in faster code,
and it actually turns out to be a bottleneck, it might make sense to
use it -- but I'd encapsulate it in a well-commented macro. (On the
other other hand, since assert() is effectively ignored if NDEBUG is
defined, optimization probably doesn't matter much anyway.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:37 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g>
wrote: Barry Schwarz <sc******@deloz .net> writes: On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:26:10 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
<no**********@c ox.net> wrote: >"Sterten" <st*****@aol.co m> wrote in message
>news:20******* *************** *****@mb-m05.aol.com...
>>
>> when I define
>> int R[99];
>> and then later access it with
>> x=R[r];C[x]=7;
>> ...
>> but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
>> becomes unpredictable.
>
>You must mean x < 0 or x >= 99 in the above.
>
>You can try this:
>
> assert((unsigne d) i < 99);
Why the cast. If i contains a sufficiently large negative value, your
assert will be true but your next statement will invoke undefined
behavior.
> t = R[i];
No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
representation s where this isn't the case.)
This is only true in the "common" situation where the absolute value
of INT_MIN is only half of UINT_MAX. The standard does not require
this. It is possible for these values to be equal but opposite in
sign. It would be legal on a 32-bit system for
INT_MAX=UINT_MA X=pow(2,31)-1 and INT_MIN=-INT_MAX. (There is no
requirement that an unsigned int use the now irrelevant sign bit to
extend its range of values.) In fact, any exponent value between 31
and 16 would be compliant.
On any system where INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX, the 99 int values
between -UINT_MAX and -UINT_MAX+98 would satisfy the assert but still
invoke undefined behavior.
But I'd still be more comfortable with
assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
place).
<<Remove the del for email>>
>On the other hand, if the more obscure form results in faster code, and it actually turns out to be a bottleneck, it might make sense to
use it -- but I'd encapsulate it in a well-commented macro. (On the
other other hand, since assert() is effectively ignored if NDEBUG is
defined, optimization probably doesn't matter much anyway.)
I don't know "assert", will have to look this up, so maybe I misunderstand the
above.
But speed is no problem in the debug-version. Later, when it runs correctly
I will remove all this checking in the final version.
"Barry Schwarz" <sc******@deloz .net> wrote in message news:ce******** **@216.39.134.2 39@theriver.com ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:37 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g>
wrote:
Barry Schwarz <sc******@deloz .net> writes: On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:26:10 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
<no**********@c ox.net> wrote:
>"Sterten" <st*****@aol.co m> wrote in message
>news:20******* *************** *****@mb-m05.aol.com...
>>
>> when I define
>> int R[99];
>> and then later access it with
>> x=R[r];C[x]=7;
>> ...
>> but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
>> becomes unpredictable.
>
>You must mean x < 0 or x >= 99 in the above.
>
>You can try this:
>
> assert((unsigne d) i < 99);
Why the cast. If i contains a sufficiently large negative value, your
assert will be true but your next statement will invoke undefined
behavior.
> t = R[i];
No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
representation s where this isn't the case.)
This is only true in the "common" situation where the absolute value
of INT_MIN is only half of UINT_MAX. The standard does not require
this. It is possible for these values to be equal but opposite in
sign. It would be legal on a 32-bit system for
INT_MAX=UINT_MA X=pow(2,31)-1 and INT_MIN=-INT_MAX. (There is no
requirement that an unsigned int use the now irrelevant sign bit to
extend its range of values.) In fact, any exponent value between 31
and 16 would be compliant.
On any system where INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX, the 99 int values
between -UINT_MAX and -UINT_MAX+98 would satisfy the assert but still
invoke undefined behavior.
A cast from int or char to unsigned does not cause undefined behavior.
But I'd still be more comfortable with
assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
place).
<<Remove the del for email>>
"Ricardo Gibert" <no**********@c ox.net> writes: "Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.or g> wrote in message
news:ln******** ****@nuthaus.mi b.org... No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
representations where this isn't the case.)
The idea that, "There might be some exotic implementation where this
isn't the case," hadn't occurred to me. I can't imagine what it would be
like. Hmmm.
An architecture on which the least significant bit it used as the sign
of a value combined with a C compiler which coerces int values to
unsigned by clearing the sign bit or even by shifting it to one of the
value bits.
Then -3 would be represented as 00000111 and would be coerced to
unsigned as 00000110 which would be +3 but still less than 99.
In any case, on two's complement machines, a good optimizing compiler
will convert "i >= 0 && i < 99" to "(unsigned) i < 99", since this saves
several assembly instructions. The cast from int to unsigned consumes
zero machine cycles on two's complement machines. In an assert, this is
not important, but anywhere else, this is a nice trick. I just thought I
throw it into my post to make people think.
But I'd still be more comfortable with
assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
For an assert() or any code that is serious about being readable for
that matter, your way is much better.
(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
place).
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org
<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*>
<http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst> We must do something. This is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
--
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:58:40 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
<no**********@c ox.net> wrote:
"Barry Schwarz" <sc******@deloz .net> wrote in message news:ce******** **@216.39.134.2 39@theriver.com ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:37 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g>
wrote:
>Barry Schwarz <sc******@deloz .net> writes:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:26:10 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
>> <no**********@c ox.net> wrote:
>> >"Sterten" <st*****@aol.co m> wrote in message
>> >news:20******* *************** *****@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> >>
>> >> when I define
>> >> int R[99];
>> >> and then later access it with
>> >> x=R[r];C[x]=7;
>> >> ...
>> >> but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
>> >> becomes unpredictable.
>> >
>> >You must mean x < 0 or x >= 99 in the above.
>> >
>> >You can try this:
>> >
>> > assert((unsigne d) i < 99);
>>
>> Why the cast. If i contains a sufficiently large negative value, your
>> assert will be true but your next statement will invoke undefined
>> behavior.
>>
>> > t = R[i];
>
>No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
>than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
>representation s where this isn't the case.)
This is only true in the "common" situation where the absolute value
of INT_MIN is only half of UINT_MAX. The standard does not require
this. It is possible for these values to be equal but opposite in
sign. It would be legal on a 32-bit system for
INT_MAX=UINT_MA X=pow(2,31)-1 and INT_MIN=-INT_MAX. (There is no
requirement that an unsigned int use the now irrelevant sign bit to
extend its range of values.) In fact, any exponent value between 31
and 16 would be compliant.
On any system where INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX, the 99 int values
between -UINT_MAX and -UINT_MAX+98 would satisfy the assert but still
invoke undefined behavior.
A cast from int or char to unsigned does not cause undefined behavior.
>
>But I'd still be more comfortable with
>
> assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
>
>(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
>place).
Obviously, but once the unsigned value has passed the assert, the
signed negative value is used as an array index and that does cause
undefined behavior.
<<Remove the del for email>>
"Barry Schwarz" <sc******@deloz .net> wrote in message news:ce******** **@216.39.135.1 07@theriver.com ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:58:40 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
<no**********@c ox.net> wrote:
"Barry Schwarz" <sc******@deloz .net> wrote in message news:ce******** **@216.39.134.2 39@theriver.com ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:37 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g>
wrote:
>Barry Schwarz <sc******@deloz .net> writes:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:26:10 -0700, "Ricardo Gibert"
>> <no**********@c ox.net> wrote:
>> >"Sterten" <st*****@aol.co m> wrote in message
>> >news:20******* *************** *****@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> >>
>> >> when I define
>> >> int R[99];
>> >> and then later access it with
>> >> x=R[r];C[x]=7;
>> >> ...
>> >> but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
>> >> becomes unpredictable.
>> >
>> >You must mean x < 0 or x >= 99 in the above.
>> >
>> >You can try this:
>> >
>> > assert((unsigne d) i < 99);
>>
>> Why the cast. If i contains a sufficiently large negative value, your
>> assert will be true but your next statement will invoke undefined
>> behavior.
>>
>> > t = R[i];
>
>No, there is no negative value of type int that yields a value less
>than 99 when converted to unsigned int. (There might be exotic
>representation s where this isn't the case.)
This is only true in the "common" situation where the absolute value
of INT_MIN is only half of UINT_MAX. The standard does not require
this. It is possible for these values to be equal but opposite in
sign. It would be legal on a 32-bit system for
INT_MAX=UINT_MA X=pow(2,31)-1 and INT_MIN=-INT_MAX. (There is no
requirement that an unsigned int use the now irrelevant sign bit to
extend its range of values.) In fact, any exponent value between 31
and 16 would be compliant.
On any system where INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX, the 99 int values
between -UINT_MAX and -UINT_MAX+98 would satisfy the assert but still
invoke undefined behavior.
A cast from int or char to unsigned does not cause undefined behavior.
>
>But I'd still be more comfortable with
>
> assert(i >= 0 && i < 99);
>
>(assuming that assert is a good way to do the check in the first
>place).
Obviously, but once the unsigned value has passed the assert, the
signed negative value is used as an array index and that does cause
undefined behavior.
Okay, I see I managed to misunderstand even though it should have been clear. Sorry.
In the event that the condition "INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX" were true, you would be correct. Something that would exhibit such undefined
behavior would be a cast from long long to unsigned long as an example, but I don't think "INT_MIN <= -UINT_MAX" is ever true, since
unsigned is guaranteed to occupy the same amount of storage as an int.
<<Remove the del for email>>
E. Robert Tisdale wrote: Sterten wrote:
when I define int R[99];
and then later access it with
x=R[r]; C[x]=7;
...
but x happens to be < 0 or > 99,
then the program's behaviour becomes unpredictable.
Is there a way to prevent this?
Is there a program or debugger or compiler
which checks the array indices before executing the command and
eventually issues an error-warning when the index is out of range?
The GNU C compiler used to do this and some compilers still do:
http://www.cray.com/craydoc/manuals/...-50-manual.pdf
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...=linux&db=bks&
srch=&fname=/SGI_Admin/Porting_Guide/sgi_html/ch04.html
http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch35/ch35.htm
I will check these later offline.
I'm using gcc3.2 .
Although I also asked for a compiler-referrence, I think
I'd prefer a program to convert my
..c-source to another .c-program with
bounds-checking
I used Google
+"C compiler" +"check array bounds"
to search for
+"C compiler" +"check array bounds"
hmm, I had used combinations with "array indices" rather than "array bounds"
and
found a referrence to the compaq-compiler
Sterten wrote:
when I define
int R[99];
and then later access it with
x=R[r];C[x]=7;
...
but x happens to be <0 or >99 , then the program's behavious
becomes unpredictable.
Is there a way to prevent this ?
Is there a program or debugger or compiler which
checks the array indices before executing the command and
eventually issues an error-warning when the index is out of range ?
You do not show us how array C is declared. Of course, if x<0 there will
be a problem, but we can't tell about >99 unless you declare C as
C[100]. Perhaps you mean r<0 or r>98?
Using assert is fine when you are developing and testing, but unless you
can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that 0<=r<=98 and no value of R is ourside the
bounds of a legal index for C, you should probably use a run-time check:
if ( r<0 || r>98 ) ...
Also, using a magic number like '98' is not a great idea - set a macro
to that value instead.
Note also that assert() will not just generate a warning message; it
will abort the program on an error. Using an 'if' test will allow the
program to write a warning message and attempt to recover, assuming you
can figure out how to do that.
Fred L. Kleinschmidt
Boeing Associate Technical Fellow
Technical Architect, Common User Interface Services
M/S 2R-94 (206)544-5225 This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Steve |
last post by:
I'm working on an e-commerce site, and one of the things I need to do is split an existing order into two orders. The problem I'm having is not
creating the new order, but getting the remaining items from the original order cleaned up in the array. What I've tried to do so far is:
1) The data is stored in a serialized array in the order_data field in the orders table. When the order is selected, it is unserialized and called
$order_data....
|
by: Michael Drumheller |
last post by:
(If you're not interested in NumArray, please skip this message.)
I am new to NumArray and I wonder if someone can help me with
array-indexing. Here's the basic situation: Given a rank-2 array
(i.e., a matrix) it seems to be trivial, with array indexing,
to extract a subset of its *columns*. But it does not seem
to be trivial to extract a subset of its *rows*. The code
snippet below describes the problem (if it really is a problem)...
|
by: Dr John Stockton |
last post by:
Q1 :
Given an array such as might have been generated by
var A =
is there a highly effective way of reducing it to - i.e.
removing the undefineds and shifting the rest down?
A.sort().slice(0,n) // would do it, but sorts; and the number
|
by: Randell D. |
last post by:
Folks,
I can program fairly comfortably in PHP and can, for the most part using
these skills and others that I've picked up over the years manage to
read/understand most code in Javascript... so I'm just asking for a few
pointers (or the full solution if you have the time) for what I want to do.
Basically, I want to write a javascript wherby I only need to pass it the
names of form fields - then my javascript will check each form field...
|
by: Adam Hartshorne |
last post by:
As a result of a graphics based algorihtms, I have a list of indices to
a set of nodes.
I want to efficiently identify any node indices that are stored multiple
times in the array and the location of them in the array /list. Hence
the output being some list of lists, containing groups of indices of the
storage array that point to the same node index.
This is obviously a trivial problem, but if my storage list is large and
the set of...
| | |
by: VK |
last post by:
A while ago I proposed to update info in the group FAQ section, but I
dropped the discussion using the approach "No matter what color the cat
is as long as it still hounts the mice". Over the last month I had
enough of extra proof that the cat doesn't hount mice anymore in more
and more situations. And the surrent sicretisme among array and hash is
the base for it.
I summarized all points in this article:...
|
by: shmartonak |
last post by:
For maximum portability what should the type of an array index be? Can
any integer type be used safely? Or should I only use an unsigned type?
Or what?
If I'm using pointers to access array elements as *(mptr+k) where I've
declared
MYTYPE *mptr;
what should be the type of 'k'? Should it be ptrdiff_t?
|
by: dennis.sam |
last post by:
Hi,
Is there away to define a multi-dimensional array with respect to the
number of dimensions the array has? For example, given a user spec of
"a b c d", I want to create a 4 dimensional array with dimensional
lengths of a, b, c and d. Thanx for any help.
|
by: memeticvirus |
last post by:
I have an array cli::array<float, 2and I would like to access a
subset of it's values by compiling an array of pointers. But, it's not
possible to create an array of type
cli:array<cli::interior_ptr<float>, 2>...
So, what do I do?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
