Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:51:15PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:59:24AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > What I said is that I can write this C code:
> > >
> > > int x[2], * p = (int *) (((char *) &x)+1);
> > > main()
> > > {
> > > *p = 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > This is legal C code.
> >
> > Err, no. This is not "legal" by any stretch of the imagination.
> > This code has undefined behaviour.
>
> I know this code has undefined behaviour at _runtime_. But I thought
> you were obliged to allow it to compile. That was my only point.
>
> > We aren't even obliged to allow this to compile.
>
> I'd love if you could forbid it to compile.
It would have to be implementation dependant/architecture dependant-
The only way to know is to realize that *p initializer value is invalid
is to know:
1. integer addresses MUST be aligned (say 4 or 8 byte boundaries)
2. the computation of (int *) (((char *) &x)+1) is a constant at
compile time, and not link time (some linkers can do address offset
calculations if "x" happens to be an external - ie. x +/- offset and
offset is a constant)
Other systems would have to allow it to compile (and link). It still has
undefined behaviour, and is non-portable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
