Is this valid?
int a[20];
void *b;
b = (void *)a; // b points to a[0]
b += 5*sizeof(*a); // b points to a[5]
a[5] = 100;
printf( "%d\n" , *((int *)b) ); // prints 100
If so, if a had been a struct, would it still work?
Is there a possibility that the array could contain some padding, so
rather than sizeof, the assignment would be
b += 5*( (void *)(&(a[1])) - (void *)(&(a[0]));
which seems more more complex.
Would any padding be incorporated into sizeof anyway?
Sep 16 '08
160  5704 
In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rote:
>I see nothing in the normative text of the standard that requires
char* and void* to be passed as function arguments in the same manner;
[...]
>The footnote, however,
implies that the above must print (in some implementation-defined
manner) the address of the first character of the literal.
From which we conclude that there is a bug in the standard: it doesn't
normatively convey what the authors intended, and it should be fixed.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
Tim Rentsch <tx*@alumnus.ca ltech.eduwrites :
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:
[...]
In addition, as far as I can tell, there is no prohibition against
returning void* and char* pointers in different registers (or other
entities). If this is correct, using the interchangeably can
create an ugly code block.
There is no such prohibition in the normative text of the standard,
but it's suggested in a footnote.
C99 6.2.5p27:
A pointer to void shall have the same representation and alignment
requirements as a pointer to a character type.
And a footnote:
The same representation and alignment requirements are meant to
imply interchangeabil ity as arguments to functions, return values
from functions, and members of unions.
This is an unfortunate flaw in the standard.
I think you're misunderstandin g the idea behind the footnote.
The "interchangeabi lity" of char*/void* is meant to talk about
values of those types used in particular contexts, not about
derived types with those types in them.
[snip]
Consider this:
printf("%p\n", "string literal");
I see nothing in the normative text of the standard that requires
char* and void* to be passed as function arguments in the same manner;
for example, void* arguments might be passed in one set of registers
and char* arguments in another. I can think of no good reason to do
so, but the standard doesn't forbid it. The footnote, however,
implies that the above must print (in some implementation-defined
manner) the address of the first character of the literal.
Doesn't 7.15.1.1 p 2 count, or 6.5.2.2 p 6?
Tim Rentsch <tx*@alumnus.ca ltech.eduwrites :
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
>Tim Rentsch <tx*@alumnus.ca ltech.eduwrites :
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrites:
[...]
In addition, as far as I can tell, there is no prohibition against
returning void* and char* pointers in different registers (or other
entities). If this is correct, using the interchangeably can
create an ugly code block.
There is no such prohibition in the normative text of the standard,
but it's suggested in a footnote.
C99 6.2.5p27:
A pointer to void shall have the same representation and alignment
requirements as a pointer to a character type.
And a footnote:
The same representation and alignment requirements are meant to
imply interchangeabil ity as arguments to functions, return values
from functions, and members of unions.
This is an unfortunate flaw in the standard.
I think you're misunderstandin g the idea behind the footnote.
The "interchangeabi lity" of char*/void* is meant to talk about
values of those types used in particular contexts, not about
derived types with those types in them.
[snip]
Consider this:
printf("%p\n", "string literal");
I see nothing in the normative text of the standard that requires
char* and void* to be passed as function arguments in the same manner;
for example, void* arguments might be passed in one set of registers
and char* arguments in another. I can think of no good reason to do
so, but the standard doesn't forbid it. The footnote, however,
implies that the above must print (in some implementation-defined
manner) the address of the first character of the literal.
Doesn't 7.15.1.1 p 2 count, or 6.5.2.2 p 6?
Yes, I think so; I hadn't seen those before. (I could probably think
of ways to work around that wording, but the intent is clear enough.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
On 10 Oct 2008 04:06:07 -0700, Tim Rentsch <tx*@alumnus.ca ltech.edu>
wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
<snip>
Consider this:
printf("%p\n", "string literal");
I see nothing in the normative text of the standard that requires
char* and void* to be passed as function arguments in the same manner;
for example, void* arguments might be passed in one set of registers
and char* arguments in another. I can think of no good reason to do
so, but the standard doesn't forbid it. The footnote, however,
implies that the above must print (in some implementation-defined
manner) the address of the first character of the literal.
Doesn't 7.15.1.1 p 2 count, or 6.5.2.2 p 6?
Not quite. The standard-library routines aren't required to be
implemented in standard C; some of them can't be (usefully).
If the implementation of printf is e.g. assembler, it doesn't use
va_arg, so rules for that doesn't apply. If it's in impl-dependent
extended C, it could use say __our_special_p rintf_vrbl_argt instead,
and again the va_arg rules don't apply -- even if that actually does
the same things va_arg does.
In reality any implementor who broke this would be figuratively ridden
out of town on a rail, because everyone expects it to work the same
way ordinary user vararg functions work, and the nonnormative
footnotes to be true. But it isn't formally required.
The function-call provision applies to the _fixed_ arguments of an
unprototyped function, not to varargs at all. Unless as above the
unprototyped function isn't C at all, in which case the C standard
can't distinguish them (and something else might or might not).
- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.ne t
David Thompson <da************ @verizon.netwri tes:
On 10 Oct 2008 04:06:07 -0700, Tim Rentsch <tx*@alumnus.ca ltech.edu>
wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rites:
<snip>
Consider this:
>
printf("%p\n", "string literal");
>
I see nothing in the normative text of the standard that requires
char* and void* to be passed as function arguments in the same manner;
for example, void* arguments might be passed in one set of registers
and char* arguments in another. I can think of no good reason to do
so, but the standard doesn't forbid it. The footnote, however,
implies that the above must print (in some implementation-defined
manner) the address of the first character of the literal.
Doesn't 7.15.1.1 p 2 count, or 6.5.2.2 p 6?
Not quite. The standard-library routines aren't required to be
implemented in standard C; some of them can't be (usefully).
If the implementation of printf is e.g. assembler, it doesn't use
va_arg, so rules for that doesn't apply. If it's in impl-dependent
extended C, it could use say __our_special_p rintf_vrbl_argt instead,
and again the va_arg rules don't apply -- even if that actually does
the same things va_arg does.
In reality any implementor who broke this would be figuratively ridden
out of town on a rail, because everyone expects it to work the same
way ordinary user vararg functions work, and the nonnormative
footnotes to be true. But it isn't formally required.
This topic has come up before. Although there were views expressed
on both sides, those who are on the committee (either as members,
or distinguished attendees such as Larry Jones) were unanimous in
reporting that the language used in the Standard was intended to
express that printf behaves the same way that the stdarg.h
functions/macros do. So the statement "it isn't formally required"
might be reasonable as a statement of opinion, but it is not a
statement of fact.
Incidentally, the comments about assembler etc are beside the
point. Whether a library function is or is not, or can be or
cannot be, implemented in standard C is irrelevant; all that
matters is that it must conform to the specifications in the
Standard. The library function printf() must conform to the
declaration given in 7.19.6.3 p 1, and (indirectly) must conform
to the specification of 7.19.6.1 (describing fprintf). Since
7.19.6.1 doesn't explicitly state otherwise, the provisions
of 7.1.4 hold; these provisions allow the reasonable inference
that the conventions of stdarg.h apply.
Furthermore, my comment/question was a response to the general
statement in Keith's posting (the sentence starting "I see
nothing ..."), which was not about printf specifically, but
about function arguments in general. Mentioning 6.5.2.2 p 6
should have made that clear, since it doesn't apply to printf.
The function-call provision applies to the _fixed_ arguments of an
unprototyped function, not to varargs at all. Unless as above the
unprototyped function isn't C at all, in which case the C standard
can't distinguish them (and something else might or might not).
Yes, the function-call section doesn't apply to printf or any other
function that takes a variable number of arguments. That's because
my response was to the general question, and not specifically about
printf.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:17:12 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
This topic has come up before. Although there were views expressed on
both sides, those who are on the committee (either as members, or
distinguished attendees such as Larry Jones) were unanimous in reporting
that the language used in the Standard was intended to express that
printf behaves the same way that the stdarg.h functions/macros do. So
the statement "it isn't formally required" might be reasonable as a
statement of opinion, but it is not a statement of fact.
It's intended to be formally required doesn't mean it is formally
required. The wording in the standard doesn't guarantee that printf e.a.
use an equivalent of va_arg, no matter what the intent may be.
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:17:12 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
This topic has come up before. Although there were views expressed on
both sides, those who are on the committee (either as members, or
distinguished attendees such as Larry Jones) were unanimous in reporting
that the language used in the Standard was intended to express that
printf behaves the same way that the stdarg.h functions/macros do. So
the statement "it isn't formally required" might be reasonable as a
statement of opinion, but it is not a statement of fact.
It's intended to be formally required doesn't mean it is formally
required. The wording in the standard doesn't guarantee that printf e.a.
use an equivalent of va_arg, no matter what the intent may be.
The point is there isn't agreement on what the formal requirements
are. Although the C standard is a formal document, it is not formal
in the sense of using mathematical language (at least, not generally).
I realize some people think the formal language of the standard allows
printf() to use different rules than va_arg. Other people, however,
think the formal language of the standard requires printf() to use the
same rules as va_arg.
Since the actual language is not unambiguous, and based on my own
judgment of which reading is more consistent with all that the
standard says about library functions and function arguments, I find
the second reading more compelling. And I believe other people that
adopt this metric for evaluating how the standard should be read
will also.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
I realize some people think the formal language of the standard allows
printf() to use different rules than va_arg. Other people, however,
think the formal language of the standard requires printf() to use the
same rules as va_arg.
Could you give a few messages where people try to explain where that is?
I've seen it discussed often enough, but have always thought there was
agreement that the standard is missing the text to require this.
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail. comwrites:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
I realize some people think the formal language of the standard allows
printf() to use different rules than va_arg. Other people, however,
think the formal language of the standard requires printf() to use the
same rules as va_arg.
Could you give a few messages where people try to explain where that is?
I've seen it discussed often enough, but have always thought there was
agreement that the standard is missing the text to require this.
Unfortunately I've lost the references since reading them. (<aside>Is
it my imagination or is searching Google groups harder than it used to
be?</aside>) But I remember that both Doug Gwyn and Larry Jones
contributed to the thread discussing printf() vis-a-vis other variadic
functions.
On 18 Nov, 00:02, Tim Rentsch <t...@alumnus.c altech.eduwrote :
>*(<aside>Is it my imagination or is searching Google groups harder than it used to
be?</aside>)
no. It's been "upgraded". I used to search for "C++" and get
comp.lang.c++
Now not even searching for comp.lang.c++ actually yeilds comp.lang.c++
duh
--
Nick Keighley This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: kazack |
last post by:
I am under the the impression that a variable is what is stored in a memory
address and a pointer is the memory address of the variable?
I was looking to use a function that does not return a value void
whatever(whatever) and not have a variable global but in main and change the
value in the void whatever function.
using namespace std;
void whatever(int);
|
by: steve |
last post by:
I'm trying to create a structure of three pointers to doubles. For
which I have:
typedef struct {
double *lst_t, *lst_vc, *lst_ic;
} last_values;
I then need to allocate space for last_values as well as assign the
value of a pointer to the assigned space. Which I think I'm doing by
using:
|
by: streamkid |
last post by:
i'm a learning newbie at c++... and i have the following question...
reading some source code, i saw this:
int function(const void * one, const void * two)
{
int var1, var2;
var1 = *((int*)one);
var2 = *((int*)two);
/* sm other code here*/
}
|
by: Bo Yang |
last post by:
As long as I write c++ code, I am worry about the
pointer. The more the system is, the dangerous the pointer
is I think.
I must pass pointers erverywhere, and is there a way to
ensure that every object pointered by any pointer will
be deleted and only be deleted once?
|
by: Jeffrey Spoon |
last post by:
Hello, I am trying to make a simple function that returns a pointer to
another function. In my header file I've declared my function pointer:
void (*pStateFunction) (void); //assume the function pointed to returns
void
and the actual function that returns the pointer:
void* getState(CString myString);
| | |
by: Zero |
last post by:
Hello all,
I wonder about void?
To which category in the C programming language does it belong?
Of how many bits consits void?
Is it possible to define a varibale called
void a;
|
by: Chad |
last post by:
At the following url http://c-faq.com/lib/qsort2.html, they have the
following
Q: Now I'm trying to sort an array of structures with qsort. My
comparison function takes pointers to structures, but the compiler
complains that the function is of the wrong type for qsort. How can I
cast the function pointer to shut off the warning?
A: The conversions must be in the comparison function, which must be
declared as accepting ``generic...
|
by: Ben Bacarisse |
last post by:
candide <toto@free.frwrites:
These two statements are very different. The first one is just wrong
and I am pretty sure you did not mean to suggest that. There is no
object in C that is the same as its address.
The second one simply depends on a term that is not well-defined.
Most people consider the type to be an important part of the notion of
|
by: mdh |
last post by:
May I ask the following.
By K&R's own admission, the example used to describe function pointers
is complex ( on P119). In addition, the use of casts has been stated
by some on this group as being, again, a poor/bad example of it's use.
For the moment, accepting these criticisms, I would still like to get
some insight into why/how some things work as even poor code is
enlightening, to me at least.
The example uses K&R's version of...
|
by: junky_fellow |
last post by:
Guys,
Consider a function
func(void **var)
{
/* In function I need to typecast the variable var as (int **)
I mean to say, I need to access var as (int **)
}
|
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: 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: 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: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| |
