It does matter, for malloc-returned storage. You can put whatever objects you want into that storage as long as it fits and the pointer is properly aligned.
You can certainly store an object of arbitrary type, but here it is done through a pointer to an object with pointer arithmetic going beyond the allowed bounds.
memcpy takes a void pointer as its destination, sets the effective type of the storage behind it
And, in doing so, may very well overwrite the unspecified padding following 'payload' in the structure, thus instantly destroying the effective type of the structure object itself. Subsequent accesses to the structure or its members will be UB.
It seems to me that your argument hinges on two assumptions:
- there is no padding following 'payload' (this would have to be statically asserted),
- the pointer to 'payload' is indistinguishable from the pointer past the structure; in particular, provenance is not an issue.
but here it is done through a pointer to an object with pointer arithmetic going beyond the allowed bounds.
When you do "void *x = malloc(sizeof(struct node))", the returned storage doesn't have struct node object in it, it has an object of no effective type in it, with size "sizeof(struct node)". Taking the pointer to payload[] field is in no way different from doing "(char*) x + offsetof(struct node, payload)" — it takes a char pointer into the object storage, adds a number (less than the object's size) and so produces another char pointer that points somewhere inside into the object storage — and no, since there has been no actual referencing of the object's value, constructing such a pointer does not set the effective type of that object; and a char pointer is explicitly allowed to alias whatever storage. Then the memcpy sets the effective type, done. No UB anywhere.
Taking the pointer to payload[] field is in no way different from doing "(char*) x + offsetof(struct node, payload)"
It may differ, depending on the precise notion of provenance being applicable. If provenance only has allocation granularity, I suppose that there is no difference. I know that there were some discussions about provenance and subobjects. I do not know whether the question is resolved.
Where this gets complicated is that zero-sized arrays are non-standard. So even if we could build a convincing argument from standard notions of provenance, how would it transfer to a subobject that is excluded from the standard?
Last but not least, this is not only about creating the effective type through memcpy. The question is also whether this destroys the effective type of the structure. See my previous point about possible padding after 'payload'.
Please also consider that flexible array members are here for a reason. If I follow your argument, then they bring nothing that arrays of length 0 or 1 do not already cover.
If payload was ever dereferenced as a char array as well, I would buy the strict aliasing argument. But it’s not, it exists as a char pointer solely for pointer arithmetic.
AFAIK The purpose of strict aliasing rules is to let the compiler assume that dereferencing pointers of different types never refer to the same memory.
If ISO C treats this as UB, shouldn’t ISO C be fixed?
I’m not chasing theoretical portability and checking off a box saying my code is 100% pure ISO C. If that’s important to you, don’t do this (and also don’t use pretty much any allocator!)
Every sufficiently useful C codebase assumes specific implementations.
Comments
You can certainly store an object of arbitrary type, but here it is done through a pointer to an object with pointer arithmetic going beyond the allowed bounds.
And, in doing so, may very well overwrite the unspecified padding following 'payload' in the structure, thus instantly destroying the effective type of the structure object itself. Subsequent accesses to the structure or its members will be UB.
It seems to me that your argument hinges on two assumptions:
That is a very interesting discussion.When you do "void *x = malloc(sizeof(struct node))", the returned storage doesn't have struct node object in it, it has an object of no effective type in it, with size "sizeof(struct node)". Taking the pointer to payload[] field is in no way different from doing "(char*) x + offsetof(struct node, payload)" — it takes a char pointer into the object storage, adds a number (less than the object's size) and so produces another char pointer that points somewhere inside into the object storage — and no, since there has been no actual referencing of the object's value, constructing such a pointer does not set the effective type of that object; and a char pointer is explicitly allowed to alias whatever storage. Then the memcpy sets the effective type, done. No UB anywhere.
It may differ, depending on the precise notion of provenance being applicable. If provenance only has allocation granularity, I suppose that there is no difference. I know that there were some discussions about provenance and subobjects. I do not know whether the question is resolved.
Where this gets complicated is that zero-sized arrays are non-standard. So even if we could build a convincing argument from standard notions of provenance, how would it transfer to a subobject that is excluded from the standard?
Last but not least, this is not only about creating the effective type through memcpy. The question is also whether this destroys the effective type of the structure. See my previous point about possible padding after 'payload'.
Please also consider that flexible array members are here for a reason. If I follow your argument, then they bring nothing that arrays of length 0 or 1 do not already cover.
If payload was ever dereferenced as a char array as well, I would buy the strict aliasing argument. But it’s not, it exists as a char pointer solely for pointer arithmetic.
AFAIK The purpose of strict aliasing rules is to let the compiler assume that dereferencing pointers of different types never refer to the same memory.
If ISO C treats this as UB, shouldn’t ISO C be fixed?
No, you should fix your code to be compliant with ISO C. The optimizer isn’t going to wait for you to convince WG14.
I’m not chasing theoretical portability and checking off a box saying my code is 100% pure ISO C. If that’s important to you, don’t do this (and also don’t use pretty much any allocator!)
Every sufficiently useful C codebase assumes specific implementations.