Is is guaranteed, that a pointer to any object in C points exactly at the
lowest addressed byte of this object?
Specifcally is it possible for any platform/os/compiler combination that:
(char *)v != (void *)v
where v is an int variable for example.
If so, any real-life examples? 42 2145
"x-pander" <ng***@pitek.eu .org> writes: Is is guaranteed, that a pointer to any object in C points exactly at the lowest addressed byte of this object?
Yes, as far as I know. (I'd love to hear intelligent
disagreement on this, because I'd learn from it.)
Specifcally is it possible for any platform/os/compiler combination that: (char *)v != (void *)v where v is an int variable for example.
Non sequitur: you just dragged in integer-to-pointer conversion,
which is definitely non-portable.
--
"Give me a couple of years and a large research grant,
and I'll give you a receipt." --Richard Heathfield
> Specifcally is it possible for any platform/os/compiler combination that: (char *)v != (void *)v where v is an int variable for example.
CORRECTION, of course (!!!) i meant:
(char *)&v != (void *)&v
In article <cs***********@ mamut.aster.pl> ,
"x-pander" <ng***@pitek.eu .org> wrote: Is is guaranteed, that a pointer to any object in C points exactly at the lowest addressed byte of this object?
Specifcally is it possible for any platform/os/compiler combination that: (char *)v != (void *)v where v is an int variable for example.
A pointer points to the whole object.
If you cast a pointer to another type, lets say from double* to int*,
you get a pointer to an object that starts at the same place as the
first object. So if you cast a pointer to char*, it points to the first
byte of the object.
You cannot compare char* and void*. In your example, the compiler will
convert the (void *) v automatically to char*, so you are actually
comparing
(char *)v == (char *) (void *) v
which is guaranteed to be equal.
In article <87************ @benpfaff.org>,
Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanfor d.edu> wrote: "x-pander" <ng***@pitek.eu .org> writes:
Is is guaranteed, that a pointer to any object in C points exactly at the lowest addressed byte of this object?
Yes, as far as I know. (I'd love to hear intelligent disagreement on this, because I'd learn from it.)
It points to the "first" byte. The C Standard doesn't say anything about
addresses.
So if you have
int x;
char* p = (char *) &x;
then the bytes of x are p [0], p [1], ..., p [sizeof (int) - 1], and not
for example p [0], p [-1], p [-2] and so on.
However, imagine you have an application of 10 million lines of code,
non-portable because it is written under the assumption that your
hardware is bigendian. You need to make it run on littleendian hardware.
You have the source code to the compiler. Instead of changing 10 million
lines of code, change the compiler so that the "first" byte is at a
higher address than the last byte; where "p++;" would usually be
translated into a hardware instruction that adds sizeof (*p), it will be
translated to a hardware instruction that subtracts sizeof (*p). Pointer
comparisons say that p < q if a hardware compare instruction says p > q
and so on. Now a pointer always points to the highest addressed byte,
and it is completely conforming and invisible to the programmer. The
compiler turned a littleendian hardware into a bigendian implementation.
(Code that casts pointers to unsigned int and checks the last bits for
alignment will not work anymore; casting to and from integer will
generally give strange results).
> If you cast a pointer to another type, lets say from double* to int*, you get a pointer to an object that starts at the same place as the first object. So if you cast a pointer to char*, it points to the first byte of the object.
I undesrtand that.
You cannot compare char* and void*. In your example, the compiler will convert the (void *) v automatically to char*, so you are actually comparing
(char *)v == (char *) (void *) v
which is guaranteed to be equal.
So how about the result of the following comparision,
which i think has a potential of effectively answering my original question:
(int *)(char *)&v != &v
Christian Bau <ch***********@ cbau.freeserve. co.uk> writes: In article <87************ @benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanfor d.edu> wrote:
"x-pander" <ng***@pitek.eu .org> writes:
> Is is guaranteed, that a pointer to any object in C points exactly at the > lowest addressed byte of this object?
Yes, as far as I know. (I'd love to hear intelligent disagreement on this, because I'd learn from it.)
It points to the "first" byte. The C Standard doesn't say anything about addresses.
Sure it does. Just one example, C99 6.5.3.1p3:
The unary & operator returns the address of its operand.
--
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.
> It points to the "first" byte. The C Standard doesn't say anything about addresses.
Actually it does:
C99: 6.3.2.3.7
"When a pointer to an object is converted to a pointer to a character type,
the result points to the lowest addressed byte of the object. Successive
increments of the result, up to the size of the object, yield pointers to
the remaining bytes of the object."
You need to make it run on littleendian hardware. You have the source code to the compiler. Instead of changing 10 million lines of code, change the compiler so that the "first" byte is at a higher address than the last byte; where "p++;" would usually be translated into a hardware instruction that adds sizeof (*p), it will be translated to a hardware instruction that subtracts sizeof (*p). Pointer comparisons say that p < q if a hardware compare instruction says p > q and so on. Now a pointer always points to the highest addressed byte, and it is completely conforming and invisible to the programmer.
An example situation in described system could be:
int x;
&x == 0x4003
(void *)&x == 0x4003
(char *)&x == 0x4000
(void *)(char *)&x = 0x4000
So:
(void *)&x != (void *)(char *)&x
In effect the following code would break (i've seen similar code in some
libraries):
void zero(void *ptr, int size)
{
memset(ptr, 0, size);
}
main()
{
int v;
zero(&v, sizeof(v));
}
The solution is to always use char * instead of void *.
Am I right?
> It points to the "first" byte. The C Standard doesn't say anything about addresses.
Actually it does:
C99: 6.3.2.3.7
"When a pointer to an object is converted to a pointer to a character type,
the result points to the lowest addressed byte of the object. Successive
increments of the result, up to the size of the object, yield pointers to
the remaining bytes of the object."
You need to make it run on littleendian hardware. You have the source code to the compiler. Instead of changing 10 million lines of code, change the compiler so that the "first" byte is at a higher address than the last byte; where "p++;" would usually be translated into a hardware instruction that adds sizeof (*p), it will be translated to a hardware instruction that subtracts sizeof (*p). Pointer comparisons say that p < q if a hardware compare instruction says p > q and so on. Now a pointer always points to the highest addressed byte, and it is completely conforming and invisible to the programmer.
An example situation in described system could be:
int x;
&x == 0x4003
(void *)&x == 0x4003
(char *)&x == 0x4000
(void *)(char *)&x = 0x4000
So:
(void *)&x != (void *)(char *)&x
In effect the following code would break (i've seen similar code in some
libraries):
void zero(void *ptr, int size)
{
memset(ptr, 0, size);
}
main()
{
int v;
zero(&v, sizeof(v));
}
The solution is to always use char * instead of void *.
Am I right? This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: Katie |
last post by:
my one base class is a linklist class.now i'd like to inherit it by
another class.The problem is that when i use the derived class i can't
access the base class's pointers.classic type mismatch.how do i link
the derived class if i can't compare the derived class's pointers to
the linklist class's pointers?
do i do it with overloading?i tried that,but could get it to work.my
handbooks (all 4 of them) has no example on how to do...
|
by: wongjoekmeu |
last post by:
Hello All,
I am learning C++ at the moment. Going through the book of SAM of
learning C++ in 21 days I have learned about pointers that it is good
custome to always initialise them and to use delete before you try to
give it a new address.
Can anyone explain to me why this code below which seems to voilate
this rule works ?
-------------------
int main()
|
by: maniac |
last post by:
Hey guys, I'm new here, just a simple question.
I'm learning to Program in C, and I was recommended a book called,
"Mastering C Pointers", just asking if any of you have read it,
and if it's worth the $25USD.
I'm just looking for a book on Pointers, because from what I've
read it's one of the toughest topics to understand.
thanks in advanced.
|
by: fix |
last post by:
Hi all,
I feel unclear about what my code is doing, although it works but I am
not sure if there is any possible bug, please help me to verify it.
This is a trie node (just similar to tree nodes) struct, I am storing an
array of 27 pointers and a void pointer that can point to anything.
typedef struct trieNode
{
struct trieNode *children; // The children nodes
void *obj; // The object stored
} TrieNode;
|
by: Daniel Rudy |
last post by:
Hello,
On a x86 machine, what is the format of a pointer in C? I know for a
fact that the x86 p-mode uses a /selector:offset/ notation where the
selector is defined in either the GDT or LDT. Does that carry over into
the pointer, or does Unix use the flat memory model?
--
Daniel Rudy
| |
by: junky_fellow |
last post by:
Can 0x0 be a valid virtual address in the address space
of an application ?
If it is valid, then the location pointed by a NULL pointer
is also valid and application should not receive "SIGSEGV"
( i am talking of unix machine ) while trying to read that
location.
Then how can i distinguish between a NULL pointer and an invalid
location ?
Is this essential that NULL pointer should not point to any of
the location in the virtual address...
|
by: ozbear |
last post by:
This is probably an obvious question.
I know that pointer comparisons are only defined if the two pointers
point somewhere "into" the storage allocated to the same object, or if
they are NULL, or one-past the end of the object as long as it isn't
dereferenced.
I use "object" in the standard 'C' sense.
Is there some special dispensation given to comparing two pointers
|
by: Bilgehan.Balban |
last post by:
Hi,
How do I declare an array of function pointers and assign each element
of the array with public member functions of a class?
Is it possible that the array is not a member of the class?
Thanks,
Bahadir
|
by: J Caesar |
last post by:
In C you can compare two pointers, p<q, as long as they come from the
same array or the same malloc()ated block. Otherwise you can't.
What I'd like to do is write a function
int comparable(void *p, void *q)
that will take any two pointers and decide whether they can be compared
or not.
I really can't think how to do this - any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
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: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
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: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
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.
| |