Hi,
maybe you remember me, some time ago I asked about how to store an
integer value into a void*, and I learned that doing pointer
arithmetic yeilding a pointer outside of an object (except the one-
after-last thingy) is undefined behaviour.
Actually I was trying to associate a function pointer with a key,
through an AVL tree that managed void* data. Function pointers can't
be stored in void* (that is, the standard does not garantee it works),
so I stored them in a dynamic array and that was the index in said
array that I wanted to store in the void* of the tree.
My frist thought was actually to store into the tree pointers to array
elements, instead of their index. The problem is, the array being
dynamic, realloc() might change its location, and then all the
pointers in my tree become invalid.
So I thought about putting in my tree pointers to array elements, and
then when realloc() changes the base, correct all the nodes of the
tree accordingly. Something like that:
fnptr* oldbase = base_of_dynamic _fnptr_array;
increase_dynami c_array_size();
fnptr* newbase = base_of_dynamic _fnptr_array;
if (oldbase != newbase)
for (void** storage_locatio n in the tree for all nodes) {
fnptr* oldptr = *storage_locati on;
int index = oldptr - oldbase;
*storage_locati on = newbase + index; }
From what I googled this is the usual way of dealing with pointers to
elements inside a realloc()ed array, and I think it works just fine on
many platforms.
But is this garanteed to work? According to my (poor) understanding of
the standard, if realloc() returns the original pointer, then oldbase
and newbase are both valid pointers which compare equal, so there is
no problem. But if realloc() changes the location of the dynamic
array, oldbase becomes an invalid pointer. I think in that case
oldbase is garanteed to compare unequal with newbase, which is a valid
pointer, but using it to compute "index" is undefined, right?
And if the above code is not garanteed to work by the standard, is
there any portable way of handling dynamic arrays moved by realloc()?
(besides never using pointers to elements inside a dynamic array)
6  2322  li********@gmai l.com wrote, On 18/04/08 16:33:
Hi,
maybe you remember me, some time ago I asked about how to store an
integer value into a void*, and I learned that doing pointer
arithmetic yeilding a pointer outside of an object (except the one-
after-last thingy) is undefined behaviour.
I remember there was a discussion about this.
Actually I was trying to associate a function pointer with a key,
through an AVL tree that managed void* data. Function pointers can't
be stored in void* (that is, the standard does not garantee it works),
Well, the C standard does not. However, if you limit yourself to a
suitable subset of C implementations you might find another standard
that does. For instance, I believe that the Posix standard provides this
guarantee, so it is possible. Note that as you are going beyond what the
C standard guarantees you need to select which implementations you are
interested in and select a method common to them.
so I stored them in a dynamic array and that was the index in said
array that I wanted to store in the void* of the tree.
My frist thought was actually to store into the tree pointers to array
elements, instead of their index. The problem is, the array being
dynamic, realloc() might change its location, and then all the
pointers in my tree become invalid.
OK, you have avoided the first trap.
So I thought about putting in my tree pointers to array elements, and
then when realloc() changes the base, correct all the nodes of the
tree accordingly. Something like that:
fnptr* oldbase = base_of_dynamic _fnptr_array;
increase_dynami c_array_size();
fnptr* newbase = base_of_dynamic _fnptr_array;
if (oldbase != newbase)
for (void** storage_locatio n in the tree for all nodes) {
fnptr* oldptr = *storage_locati on;
int index = oldptr - oldbase;
*storage_locati on = newbase + index; }
From what I googled this is the usual way of dealing with pointers to
elements inside a realloc()ed array, and I think it works just fine on
many platforms.
But is this garanteed to work?
No.
According to my (poor) understanding of
the standard, if realloc() returns the original pointer, then oldbase
and newbase are both valid pointers which compare equal, so there is
no problem.
Correct.
But if realloc() changes the location of the dynamic
array, oldbase becomes an invalid pointer. I think in that case
oldbase is garanteed to compare unequal with newbase, which is a valid
pointer, but using it to compute "index" is undefined, right?
No, it is *not* guaranteed to compare unequal. Just evaluating it
invokes undefined behaviour and so could crash your program.
And if the above code is not garanteed to work by the standard, is
there any portable way of handling dynamic arrays moved by realloc()?
(besides never using pointers to elements inside a dynamic array)
The way to deal with it is to use indices rather than pointers.
Actually, for your problem as you need something beyond what the C
standard guarantees I would be inclined to rely on the guarantees of
Posix and the behaviour of Windows and just store the function pointers
in the void* if that would cover all the required platforms. Then the
code is far simpler.
--
Flash Gordon
In article <l4************ @news.flash-gordon.me.uk>
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwro te:
>Actually, for your problem as you need something beyond what the C
standard guarantees I would be inclined to rely on the guarantees of
Posix and the behaviour of Windows and just store the function pointers
in the void* if that would cover all the required platforms. Then the
code is far simpler.
I tend to agree with Flash Gordon here: the engineering tradeoff
between "greater portability" and "simpler but non-portable code"
seems to be weighted towards the "simpler but non-portable" version.
You might also want to attempt, as much as possible anyway, to
isolate the non-portable code to a replaceable module, so that
in the future, when the code is moved to a machine on which the
old non-portable method fails, a new method can be substituted
with minimal pain. (The new method can either continue to be
non-portable, or chosen to be portable, depending on the newest
set of engineering tradeoffs.)
The other "obvious" option is to modify the AVL tree code, so
that the "payload" part of the tree is a union:
union avl_tree_value_ union {
void *value_if_data_ pointer;
void (*value_if_func _ptr)(void);
int value_if_int;
};
(which is in fact portable, but requires modifying the AVL tree
code).
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: gmail (figure it out) http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Flash Gordon writes:
>li********@gma il.com wrote, On 18/04/08 16:33:
>According to my (poor) understanding of
the standard, if realloc() returns the original pointer, then oldbase
and newbase are both valid pointers which compare equal, so there is
no problem.
Correct.
No. The realloc definition does not acknowledge any original pointer.
It just says realloc deallocates the old & returns a new object.
Comparing oldbase with anything yields undefined behavior, so how do you
know realloc returned the original pointer anyway? The compiler can
catch you at it.
E.g. if it knows that some variable contains the now-indeterminate
oldbase value, it may overwrite that variable. (Well, unless the
program can detect that the bit pattern in the variable changed, I guess
- by reading the variable as character data.)
A more esoteric variant I seem to remember seeing in comp.<lang/std>.c:
If malloc/realloc can affect page maps rather than moving memory around,
the new pointer could even have the same bit representation as the old
pointer - and yet be a different pointer. And realloc need then not
ensure that the value (old pointer + pagesize) still refers to the
corresponding (new pointer + pagesize).
--
Hallvard
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote, On 20/04/08 17:49:
Flash Gordon writes:
>li********@gmai l.com wrote, On 18/04/08 16:33:
>>According to my (poor) understanding of
the standard, if realloc() returns the original pointer, then oldbase
and newbase are both valid pointers which compare equal, so there is
no problem.
Correct.
No. The realloc definition does not acknowledge any original pointer.
It just says realloc deallocates the old & returns a new object.
Comparing oldbase with anything yields undefined behavior, so how do you
know realloc returned the original pointer anyway?
You can use memcmp. Of course, it might give false negatives. However,
if the bit pattern is the same I don't see any way for it not to still
be valid.
The compiler can
catch you at it.
E.g. if it knows that some variable contains the now-indeterminate
oldbase value, it may overwrite that variable. (Well, unless the
program can detect that the bit pattern in the variable changed, I guess
- by reading the variable as character data.)
Which the program is allowed to do :-)
A more esoteric variant I seem to remember seeing in comp.<lang/std>.c:
If malloc/realloc can affect page maps rather than moving memory around,
the new pointer could even have the same bit representation as the old
pointer - and yet be a different pointer. And realloc need then not
ensure that the value (old pointer + pagesize) still refers to the
corresponding (new pointer + pagesize).
If the bit patterns of old pointer and new pointer are the same it is
difficult to see how old pointer can fail to point at the correct place.
However, the OP was explicitly talking about if the original pointer was
returned not a pointer that happened to have the same bit pattern!
I agree that there is no sensible way to check of the old pointer and
new pointer are the same and it is pointless to try.
--
Flash Gordon
Flash Gordon writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote, On 20/04/08 17:49:
>>Flash Gordon writes:
>>>li********@g mail.com wrote, On 18/04/08 16:33:
According to my (poor) understanding of
the standard, if realloc() returns the original pointer, then oldbase
and newbase are both valid pointers which compare equal, so there is
no problem.
Correct.
No. The realloc definition does not acknowledge any original pointer.
It just says realloc deallocates the old & returns a new object.
Comparing oldbase with anything yields undefined behavior, so how do you
know realloc returned the original pointer anyway?
You can use memcmp. Of course, it might give false negatives.
And as I said below, it can give false positives too.
However, if the bit pattern is the same I don't see any way for it not
to still be valid.
What's "valid"? What does "the pointers are the same" mean? The
standard doesn't define any of this, so you have to define it first.
>The compiler can
catch you at it.
E.g. if it knows that some variable contains the now-indeterminate
oldbase value, it may overwrite that variable. (Well, unless the
program can detect that the bit pattern in the variable changed, I guess
- by reading the variable as character data.)
Which the program is allowed to do :-)
Sure, but most programs don't. And while you can use memcmp and thus
freeze the bit pattern or something, it's still hard to decide just what
that means in theory. In practice it may well make sense to decide you
don't support too esoteric architectures.
After a memcmp the old pointer value and pointers computed from it
remain invalid when used as pointers, but you could use them anyway if
you are sure you've successfully protected them from the compiler (and
compilers are getting smarter all the time). Preferably you'd instead
use the new pointer and just make a note that it matches the old one,
but that doesn't help old pointers computed from the original old one.
>A more esoteric variant I seem to remember seeing in comp.<lang/std>.c:
If malloc/realloc can affect page maps rather than moving memory around,
the new pointer could even have the same bit representation as the old
pointer - and yet be a different pointer. And realloc need then not
ensure that the value (old pointer + pagesize) still refers to the
correspondin g (new pointer + pagesize).
If the bit patterns of old pointer and new pointer are the same it is
difficult to see how old pointer can fail to point at the correct place.
However, the OP was explicitly talking about if the original pointer was
returned not a pointer that happened to have the same bit pattern!
Yes. That's why I said it can adjust page maps. And an address range
viewed as integeres need not be a sequence of contiguous numbers.
Realloc can grow a malloced area by affecting the OS's mapping of
virtual memory to physical memory. If it needs a new page to be put at
the end of an address range, it just asks the OS to put insert a page
there and tell it the page number. Pointer arithmetic which crosses
page boundaries will need help from the virtual memory page maps.
And - since realloc invalidates all pointers into the malloced address
range, realloc might be a good time to normalize the page maps of that
address range, or something like that. Then even if the bit pattern of
a pointer to the start of the address range remains the same, the bit
pattern of the value (start of alloced area + some offset) can change.
I don't remember if that was the actual example (probably it wasn't),
but it is possible and stuff like that has been done.
I agree that there is no sensible way to check of the old pointer and
new pointer are the same and it is pointless to try.
--
Hallvard
I wrote:
Yes. That's why I said it can adjust page maps. And an address range
viewed as integeres need not be a sequence of contiguous numbers.
Realloc can grow a malloced area by affecting the OS's mapping of
virtual memory to physical memory. If it needs a new page to be put at
the end of an address range, it just asks the OS to put insert a page
there and tell it the page number. Pointer arithmetic which crosses
page boundaries will need help from the virtual memory page maps.
If this wasn't clear: The point of the nonlinear address space is, then
there need be no such concept as an unused area between two malloced
address ranges, so "there is not enough room after the malloced area"
cannot happen. As with a physical folder, you can always insert a new
page after any particular page. Until the folder bursts, anyway.
--
Hallvard This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Terence |
last post by:
I need some clarification with pointer arithmetics on void *.
Example 1:
========
char s;
char *ptr = s;
ptr += 1;
// I assume ptr is increased by 1 byte, pointing to the 2nd element in the array, right?
Example 2:
|
by: Jonas |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm 99 % sure that Standard C guarantees to do a memory move inside
realloc() in case the new, returned memory block (address) is different than
the original one. Can any C expert confirm this to me, please?
Thanks,
Jonas
PS. I using C90, not C99--if it makes a difference.
|
by: Walter Roberson |
last post by:
If realloc() finds it necessary to move the memory block, then
does it free() the previously allocated block?
The C89 standard has some reference to undefined behaviour if one
realloc()'s memory that was freed by realloc(), but the only way
explicitly mentioned in the C89 standard to free memory via realloc()
is to realloc() it down to 0 bytes.
I had always assumed it would automatically free the previous memory,
but is the behaviour...
|
by: Jonathan Shan |
last post by:
Hello all,
I am trying to run a program which has dynamic array of type struct.
The program works until the line which uses realloc function to
allocate more memory.
I have tried to reproduce this in a simpler code, but in the simpler
code the program works fine.
Is there any reason realloc would just hang without producing any error
|
by: subramanian |
last post by:
I have taken the following prototype from K & R.
void *realloc(void *p, size_t size);
Suppose p was earlier allocated by malloc. Suppose I am calling realloc
with larger size value.
If realloc is successful, will the return pointer be the same as p or
will it be different.
K & R 2nd edition says "realloc returns a pointer to the new space".
| | |
by: Robert Seacord |
last post by:
The C standard doesn't say anything about what happens when you call
realloc with a size argument of 0. Both glibc and openbsd appear to
return a valid pointer to a zero-sized object.. e.g. the return of a
malloc(0).
Does anyone know of a runtime where realloc() free'ed the object and
then returned NULL? If so, it would make the following idiom for
realloc() exploitable. Here's the idiom, snagged from an openbsd man page:
if ((p2 =...
|
by: anirbid.banerjee |
last post by:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
char *ptr = "hello";
ptr = (char *)realloc (ptr,(size_t) 10 * sizeof (char ));
printf ("\n %s", ptr);
return 0;
}
___________________________________
The above program while execution dumps a stack trace and exits. This
|
by: Kenneth Brody |
last post by:
I looked at my copy of n1124, and I didn't see anything about this
particular situation...
What happens if you realloc() to a size of zero?
Implementations are allowed to return NULL on malloc(0), and realloc()
says it reutrns NULL on failure. (And, on failure, the old pointer
has not been freed.)
Is it possible for an implementation to return NULL for realloc(ptr,0)
|
by: Francois Grieu |
last post by:
When running the following code under MinGW, I get
realloc(p,0) returned NULL
Is that a non-conformance?
TIA,
Francois Grieu
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
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: 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...
| |
