Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Testing Equal Pointers
Message-ID: <9945@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 29 Mar 89 16:49:03 GMT
References: <1989Mar21.085704.15894@ateng.ateng.com> <16039@cup.portal.com> <375@sdti.SDTI.COM> <9930@smoke.BRL.MIL> <377@sdti.SDTI.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 62

In article <377@sdti.SDTI.COM> turner@sdti.UUCP (0006-Prescott K. Turner, Jr.) writes:
>... doesn't the standard permit odd behavior in a case like the following:
>    char a[LIMIT];
>    char b[LIMIT];
>    ...
>    if (a+LIMIT == b) ...
>It appears that a+LIMIT may compare equal to b, in which case 3.3.9

Actually, 3.3.8.

>says they point to the same object (b[0])

or one past the last element of the same array object (a).  These are
indistinguishable possibilities in this example, but that's not
considered to pose a practical problem.

>But doesn't the standard permit the behavior which happens with large
>model compilers for MS-DOS, in which they point to the same object and
>compare not equal?  I guess you're implying that the MS-DOS behavior
>is covered by saying that a+LIMIT does not point to an object.

`a+LIMIT' is not guaranteed to point to an object, although it might
do so "accidentally" as in this example.  There are a number of ways
I might construct a pointer to a valid object, many of them quite
implementation-dependent.  The pANS requires that all "valid" (i.e.
portable) pointer operations that are guaranteed by the standard to
produce pointers to the same object (or one past the last element of
an array), will produce pointers that compare equal.  The important
point is that valid pointer operations that could produce equal
pointers (depending on run-time variables) but happen to have
produced unequal pointers are definitely guaranteed not to refer to
the same object, so that for example simple comparison of links in a
circular list can be used to determine when the list has been
traversed. If MS-DOS implementations can, through valid pointer
operations, produce pointers to the same object that might compare
unequal, then the standard requires some form of "normalization" be
performed before the comparison, in order to assure that the pointers
do compare equal.  This property is considered essential for reliable
C programming.

>Erroneous code is definitely a concern.

It is impractical for the standard to attempt to constrain the
behavior of code that does not obey the constraints of the standard.
Think about it.

If a pointer has been produced via valid operations, it may be tested
against the addresses of each element of an array object to tell
whether or not the pointer "lies within" the array.  Comparison with
just the first and last (plus one?) elements of the array is not
sufficient, because "normalization" is not required in such a case.
As I recall, the committee didn't think < or > between different
array object pointers was of sufficient practical importance to
require the extra normalization operations.

Frankly, I have to wonder how anyone could let their code get so far
out of hand as to not know what their pointers are pointing to.  The
only practical application for this question I've been able to think
of is to determine whether it is possible to implement memmove() in
portable ANSI C.  If segmented implementations normalize pointers when
they are passed as function arguments, there should be no problem,
otherwise memmove() requires an implementation-dependent solution.