Why pointer subtraction is undefined behavior in C++? - c++

Question

For the example below, what may cause undefined behavior? and why?
#include <cstddef>
#include <iostream>
template <typename Ty>
bool in_range(const Ty *test, const Ty *r, size_t n)
{
return 0 < (test - r) && (test - r) < (std::ptrdiff_t)n;
}
void f() {
double foo[10];
double *x = &foo[0];
double bar;
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(&bar, x, 10);
}
I have not found the answer in When is pointer subtraction undefined in C?

Answer 1

Pointer arithmetic, including the subtraction of two pointers, is only defined if the pointers point to elements within the same array, or one past the end of that array. In this context, a scalar counts as an array of size 1.
It's pretty pointless to allow pointer arithmetic in any other instance. To do that would unnecessarily constrain the C's memory model and could curtail its flexibility and ability to port to exotic architectures.

Answer 2

For the code, as you've written it, the answer is basically the same for C++ as it is for C: you get defined behavior if and only if the two pointers involved refer to parts of the same array, or one past its end (where, as #bathsheba already noted, a non-array object is treated as being the same as an array of one item).
C++ does, however, add one wrinkle that might be useful to know about here: even though neither subtraction nor ordered comparisons (e.g., <) is required to produce meaningful results when applied to pointers to separate objects, std::less<T> and friends, from <functional> are required to do so. So, given two separate objects like this:
Object a;
Object b;
...comparing the addresses of the two objects with the comparison objects must "yield a strict total order that is consistent among those specializations and is also consistent with the partial order imposed by the built-in operators <, >, <=, >=." (N4659, [comparisons]/2).
As such, you could write your function something like this:
template <typename Ty>
bool in_range(const Ty *test, const Ty *begin, const Ty *end)
{
return std::less_equal<Ty *>()(begin, test) && std::less<Ty *>()(test, end);
}
If you really want to maintain the original function signature, you could do that as well:
template <typename Ty>
bool in_range(const Ty *test, const Ty *r, size_t n)
{
auto end = r + n;
return std::less_equal<Ty *>()(r, test) && std::less<Ty *>()(test, end);
}
[Note that I've written it using std::less_equal for the first comparison, and std:less for the second to match the typically expected semantics of C++, where the range is defined as [begin, end). ]
This does carry one proviso though: you need to ensure that r points to to the beginning of an array of at least n items1, or else the auto end = r + n; will produce undefined behavior.
At least for what I'd expect as the typical use-case for such a function, you can probably simplify usage a little but by passing the array itself, rather than a pointer and explicit length:
template <class Ty, size_t N>
bool in_range(Ty (&array)[N], Ty *test) {
return std::less_equal<Ty *>()(&array[0], test) &&
std::less<Ty *>()(test, &array[0] + N);
}
In this case, you'd just pass the name of the array, and the pointer you want to test:
int foo[10];
int *bar = &foo[4];
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(foo, bar) << "\n"; // returns true
This only supports testing against actual arrays though. If you attempt to pass a non-array item as the first parameter it simply won't compile:
int foo[10];
int bar;
int *baz = &foo[0];
int *ptr = new int[20];
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(bar, baz) << "\n"; // won't compile
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(ptr, baz) << "\n"; // won't compile either
The former probably prevents some accidents. The latter might not be quite as desirable. If we want to support both, we can do so via overloading (for all three situations, if we choose to):
template <class Ty, size_t N>
bool in_range(Ty (&array)[N], Ty *test) {
return std::less_equal<Ty *>()(&array[0], test) &&
std::less<Ty *>()(test, &array[0]+ N);
}
template <class Ty>
bool in_range(Ty &a, Ty *b) { return &a == b; }
template <class Ty>
bool in_range(Ty a, Ty b, size_t N) {
return std::less_equal<Ty>()(a, b) &&
std::less<Ty>()(b, a + N);
}
void f() {
double foo[10];
double *x = &foo[0];
double bar;
double *baz = new double[20];
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(foo, x) << "\n";
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(bar, x) << "\n";
std::cout << std::boolalpha << in_range(baz, x, 20) << "\n";
}
1. If you want to get really technical, it doesn't have to point to the beginning of the array--it just has to point to part of an array that's followed by at least n items in the array.

Answer 3

Undefined behavior in this case usually does not cause a crash, but a meaningless or inconsistent result.
In most modern architectures, subtracting 2 unrelated pointers just computes the difference of addresses divided by the size of the pointed type, approximately this:
A *p1, *p2;
...
ptrdiff_t diff = ((intptr_t)p2 - (intptr_t)p1) / (intptr_t)sizeof(*p1);
Examples of architectures where the behavior would be unexpected are Intel's 16 bit segmented medium and large models:
These models were once prevalent on PCs, before the 386 came along and its 32-bit model.
far pointers were stored in 2 parts: a 16-bit segment (or selector in protected mode) and a 16-bit offset.
comparing 2 pointers for equality required 2 separate compare instructions and conditional jumps for the segment and the offset.
comparing a pointer to NULL was usually optimized as a single comparison of the segment part with 0
subtracting 2 pointers and comparing for relative position was performed on the offset part only, making the silent assumption that both pointers pointed to the same array, hence had the same segment.
in your example, both objects have automatic storage, so they are both in the same segment, pointed to as SS, but for 2 objects allocated from the heap you could have p <= q && q <= p and p != q at the same time, or p - q == 0 with p != q which is covered by undefined behavior.