Related
I found out that using a C compiler the code below works but not with a C++ compiler. I understand that casting to void** is the correct usage but I can't understand why it compiles with the C compiler even if I use the void* (commented out).
#include <stdio.h>
int fn(void **arg)
{
int *pvalue = *(int**)arg;
*pvalue = 200;
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int value = 99;
int *pvalue = &value;
// fn((void *)&pvalue); // works only in C
// error C2664: 'int fn(void **)': cannot convert argument 1 from 'void *' to 'void **'
fn((void **)&pvalue); // correct, works for both C/C++
printf("%d", value);
return 0;
}
Can someone explain why this is the case?
In C there is allowed to assign a pointer of the type void * to a pointer of other type. This takes place in this call
fn((void *)&pvalue)
where the argument has the type void * that is assigned to the function parameter that has the type void **.
int fn(void **arg)
{
int *pvalue = *(int**)arg;
*pvalue = 200;
return 0;
}
However such an assignment in general is unsafe. For example the value of a pointer of the type void * can not be properly aligned to be assigned to a pointer of other type.
So it was decided to not allow such an assignment in C++ to make programs more safer.
I can't understand why it compiles with the C compiler even if I use the void* (commented out).
It compiles because void* is implicitly convertible to other pointers in C.
fn((void **)&pvalue); // correct, works for both C/C++
This may be well-formed because of the cast, the standard doesn't technically give explicit guarantee that conversion to void** and back yields the same address.
While this may be likely to work in practice, there is no reason to not use void* as the function argument instead, which does have the guarantee. As a bonus, you won't need the cast in the call. Like this:
int fn(void *arg);
fn(&pvalue); // correct, works for both C/C++
Of course, this is assuming type erasure is needed in the first place. Avoid void* when it is not needed.
For avoidance of doubt, there is nothing correct in
fn((void **)&pvalue);
It is just as incorrect as
fn((void *)&pvalue);
The correct way to use the API is to do
int fn(void **arg)
{
int *pvalue = (int *)*arg;
*(int *)pvalue = 200;
return 0;
}
or
int fn(void **arg)
{
*(int *)*arg = 200;
return 0;
}
with
int main()
{
int value = 99;
void *pvalue = (void*)&value;
fn(&pvalue);
printf("%d", value);
return 0;
}
You're not allowed to access an object using any other pointer type, other than the declared type, compatible type, or a character type. Furthermore, while void * is used as a generic pointer type to all sorts of objects in C, there is no generic pointer to a pointer type in C - other than void *!
And this is the reason why the void ** is almost always a sign of a design error in APIs - most usages are just wrong.
I just found out that this is illegal in C++ (but legal in C):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define ARRAY_LENGTH(A) (sizeof(A) / sizeof(A[0]))
int accumulate(int n, const int (*array)[])
{
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
sum += (*array)[i];
}
return sum;
}
int main(void)
{
int a[] = {3, 4, 2, 4, 6, 1, -40, 23, 35};
printf("%d\n", accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), &a));
return 0;
}
It compiles without problems using gcc -std=c89 -pedantic but fails to compile using g++. When I try to compile it using g++ I get these error messages:
main.cpp:5:37: error: parameter 'array' includes pointer to array of unknown bound 'int []'
int accumulate(int n, int (*array)[])
^
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:18:50: error: cannot convert 'int (*)[9]' to 'int (*)[]' for argument '2' to 'int accumulate(int, int (*)[])'
printf("%d\n", accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), &a));
I have been using this in my C code for a long time and I had no idea that it was illegal in C++. To me this seems like a useful way to document that a function takes an array whose size is not known before hand.
I want to know why this is legal C but invalid C++. I also wonder what it was that made the C++ committee decide to take it away (and breaking this compatibility with C).
So why is this legal C code but illegal C++ code?
Dan Saks wrote about this in 1995, during the lead up to C++ standardisation:
The committees decided that functions such as this, that accept a
pointer or reference to an array with unknown bound, complicate
declaration matching and overload resolution rules in C++. The
committees agreed that, since such functions have little utility and
are fairly uncommon, it would be simplest to just ban them. Hence, the
C++ draft now states:
If the type of a parameter includes a type of the form pointer to
array of unknown bound of T or reference to array of unknown bound of
T, the program is ill-formed.
C++ doesn't have C's notion of "compatible type". In C, this is a perfectly valid redeclaration of a variable:
extern int (*a)[];
extern int (*a)[3];
In C, this is a perfectly valid redeclaration of the same function:
extern void f();
extern void f(int);
In C, this is implementation-specific, but typically a valid redeclaration of the same variable:
enum E { A, B, C };
extern enum E a;
extern unsigned int a;
C++ doesn't have any of that. In C++, types are either the same, or are different, and if they are different, then there is very little concern in how different they are.
Similarly,
int main() {
const char array[] = "Hello";
const char (*pointer)[] = &array;
}
is valid in C, but invalid in C++: array, despite the [], is declared as an array of length 6. pointer is declared as a pointer to an array of unspecified length, which is a different type. There is no implicit conversion from const char (*)[6] to const char (*)[].
Because of that, functions taking pointers to arrays of unspecified length are pretty much useless in C++, and almost certainly a mistake on the part of the programmer. If you start from a concrete array instance, you almost always have the size already, so you cannot take its address in order to pass it to your function, because you would have a type mismatch.
And there is no need for pointers to arrays of unspecified length in your example either: the normal way to write that in C, which happens to also be valid in C++, is
int accumulate(int n, int *array)
{
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
sum += array[i];
}
return sum;
}
to be called as accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), a).
I just found out that this is illegal in C++ (but legal in C):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define ARRAY_LENGTH(A) (sizeof(A) / sizeof(A[0]))
int accumulate(int n, const int (*array)[])
{
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
sum += (*array)[i];
}
return sum;
}
int main(void)
{
int a[] = {3, 4, 2, 4, 6, 1, -40, 23, 35};
printf("%d\n", accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), &a));
return 0;
}
It compiles without problems using gcc -std=c89 -pedantic but fails to compile using g++. When I try to compile it using g++ I get these error messages:
main.cpp:5:37: error: parameter 'array' includes pointer to array of unknown bound 'int []'
int accumulate(int n, int (*array)[])
^
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:18:50: error: cannot convert 'int (*)[9]' to 'int (*)[]' for argument '2' to 'int accumulate(int, int (*)[])'
printf("%d\n", accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), &a));
I have been using this in my C code for a long time and I had no idea that it was illegal in C++. To me this seems like a useful way to document that a function takes an array whose size is not known before hand.
I want to know why this is legal C but invalid C++. I also wonder what it was that made the C++ committee decide to take it away (and breaking this compatibility with C).
So why is this legal C code but illegal C++ code?
Dan Saks wrote about this in 1995, during the lead up to C++ standardisation:
The committees decided that functions such as this, that accept a
pointer or reference to an array with unknown bound, complicate
declaration matching and overload resolution rules in C++. The
committees agreed that, since such functions have little utility and
are fairly uncommon, it would be simplest to just ban them. Hence, the
C++ draft now states:
If the type of a parameter includes a type of the form pointer to
array of unknown bound of T or reference to array of unknown bound of
T, the program is ill-formed.
C++ doesn't have C's notion of "compatible type". In C, this is a perfectly valid redeclaration of a variable:
extern int (*a)[];
extern int (*a)[3];
In C, this is a perfectly valid redeclaration of the same function:
extern void f();
extern void f(int);
In C, this is implementation-specific, but typically a valid redeclaration of the same variable:
enum E { A, B, C };
extern enum E a;
extern unsigned int a;
C++ doesn't have any of that. In C++, types are either the same, or are different, and if they are different, then there is very little concern in how different they are.
Similarly,
int main() {
const char array[] = "Hello";
const char (*pointer)[] = &array;
}
is valid in C, but invalid in C++: array, despite the [], is declared as an array of length 6. pointer is declared as a pointer to an array of unspecified length, which is a different type. There is no implicit conversion from const char (*)[6] to const char (*)[].
Because of that, functions taking pointers to arrays of unspecified length are pretty much useless in C++, and almost certainly a mistake on the part of the programmer. If you start from a concrete array instance, you almost always have the size already, so you cannot take its address in order to pass it to your function, because you would have a type mismatch.
And there is no need for pointers to arrays of unspecified length in your example either: the normal way to write that in C, which happens to also be valid in C++, is
int accumulate(int n, int *array)
{
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
sum += array[i];
}
return sum;
}
to be called as accumulate(ARRAY_LENGTH(a), a).
I've got some code written in C (specifically targeted to gcc) that needs to also compile as C++ (g++). I've run into a construct I'm having difficulty dealing with.
There are some macros used in a lot of places which basically take the address of a constant, although they also work on non-constants. The construct winds up looking something like this:
int *iptr = (&(int){5});
What this essentially lets happen is a constant be specified, and then a pointer to that constant can be taken for use in a function that requires an int pointer, but only a constant is specified. Multiple values can also be specified inside the curley braces to construct an actual temporary array, too. And it works great.
Problem in, g++ does not like this at all, throwing
error: non-lvalue in unary `&'
Update: Looks like I can take the address of a constant in C++ by doing something like:
const int & ref = 5;
So that's the starting point for the direction I'm trying to take.
The following appears to work in both C and C++, although it only compiles under C++11, not C++03.
#ifdef __cplusplus
#define A(type,x) (&(const type &)(type)x)
#define Of(...) { __VA_ARGS__ }
#else
#define A(type,x) (&(type){x})
#define Of(...) __VA_ARGS__
#endif
Test Code:
int test(const void *ptr,int len) {
char *str = (char *)ptr;
int i;
for (i=0;i<len;i++) {
printf("%02X ",str[i]);
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
int main() {
test(A(int,5),4);
test(A(x,Of(5,6)),8);
int i=1,j=2;
test(A(x,Of(i,j)),8);
}
Edit: Whoops, not quite there. Doesn't work if the type is a pointer!
test(A(char *,9),4);
=>
error: invalid cast of an rvalue expression of type 'char*' to type 'const char*&'
Note: I'm abandoning this approach in favor of a different approach (compiling C code as C and linking it via C++) but will keep this answer up in case it is useful to somebody.
C and C++ have many differences, and not all valid C code is valid C++ code.
(By "valid" I mean standard code with defined behavior, i.e. not implementation-specific/undefined/etc.)
Is there any scenario in which a piece of code valid in both C and C++ would produce different behavior when compiled with a standard compiler in each language?
To make it a reasonable/useful comparison (I'm trying to learn something practically useful, not to try to find obvious loopholes in the question), let's assume:
Nothing preprocessor-related (which means no hacks with #ifdef __cplusplus, pragmas, etc.)
Anything implementation-defined is the same in both languages (e.g. numeric limits, etc.)
We're comparing reasonably recent versions of each standard (e.g. say, C++98 and C90 or later)
If the versions matter, then please mention which versions of each produce different behavior.
Here is an example that takes advantage of the difference between function calls and object declarations in C and C++, as well as the fact that C90 allows the calling of undeclared functions:
#include <stdio.h>
struct f { int x; };
int main() {
f();
}
int f() {
return printf("hello");
}
In C++ this will print nothing because a temporary f is created and destroyed, but in C90 it will print hello because functions can be called without having been declared.
In case you were wondering about the name f being used twice, the C and C++ standards explicitly allow this, and to make an object you have to say struct f to disambiguate if you want the structure, or leave off struct if you want the function.
For C++ vs. C90, there's at least one way to get different behavior that's not implementation defined. C90 doesn't have single-line comments. With a little care, we can use that to create an expression with entirely different results in C90 and in C++.
int a = 10 //* comment */ 2
+ 3;
In C++, everything from the // to the end of the line is a comment, so this works out as:
int a = 10 + 3;
Since C90 doesn't have single-line comments, only the /* comment */ is a comment. The first / and the 2 are both parts of the initialization, so it comes out to:
int a = 10 / 2 + 3;
So, a correct C++ compiler will give 13, but a strictly correct C90 compiler 8. Of course, I just picked arbitrary numbers here -- you can use other numbers as you see fit.
The following, valid in C and C++, is going to (most likely) result in different values in i in C and C++:
int i = sizeof('a');
See Size of character ('a') in C/C++ for an explanation of the difference.
Another one from this article:
#include <stdio.h>
int sz = 80;
int main(void)
{
struct sz { char c; };
int val = sizeof(sz); // sizeof(int) in C,
// sizeof(struct sz) in C++
printf("%d\n", val);
return 0;
}
C90 vs. C++11 (int vs. double):
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
auto j = 1.5;
printf("%d", (int)sizeof(j));
return 0;
}
In C auto means local variable. In C90 it's ok to omit variable or function type. It defaults to int. In C++11 auto means something completely different, it tells the compiler to infer the type of the variable from the value used to initialize it.
Another example that I haven't seen mentioned yet, this one highlighting a preprocessor difference:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
#if true
printf("true!\n");
#else
printf("false!\n");
#endif
return 0;
}
This prints "false" in C and "true" in C++ - In C, any undefined macro evaluates to 0. In C++, there's 1 exception: "true" evaluates to 1.
Per C++11 standard:
a. The comma operator performs lvalue-to-rvalue conversion in C but not C++:
char arr[100];
int s = sizeof(0, arr); // The comma operator is used.
In C++ the value of this expression will be 100 and in C this will be sizeof(char*).
b. In C++ the type of enumerator is its enum. In C the type of enumerator is int.
enum E { a, b, c };
sizeof(a) == sizeof(int); // In C
sizeof(a) == sizeof(E); // In C++
This means that sizeof(int) may not be equal to sizeof(E).
c. In C++ a function declared with empty params list takes no arguments. In C empty params list mean that the number and type of function params is unknown.
int f(); // int f(void) in C++
// int f(*unknown*) in C
This program prints 1 in C++ and 0 in C:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{
int d = (int)(abs(0.6) + 0.5);
printf("%d", d);
return 0;
}
This happens because there is double abs(double) overload in C++, so abs(0.6) returns 0.6 while in C it returns 0 because of implicit double-to-int conversion before invoking int abs(int). In C, you have to use fabs to work with double.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof('a'));
return 0;
}
In C, this prints whatever the value of sizeof(int) is on the current system, which is typically 4 in most systems commonly in use today.
In C++, this must print 1.
Another sizeof trap: boolean expressions.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof !0);
}
It equals to sizeof(int) in C, because the expression is of type int, but is typically 1 in C++ (though it's not required to be). In practice they are almost always different.
An old chestnut that depends on the C compiler, not recognizing C++ end-of-line comments...
...
int a = 4 //* */ 2
+2;
printf("%i\n",a);
...
The C++ Programming Language (3rd Edition) gives three examples:
sizeof('a'), as #Adam Rosenfield mentioned;
// comments being used to create hidden code:
int f(int a, int b)
{
return a //* blah */ b
;
}
Structures etc. hiding stuff in out scopes, as in your example.
Another one listed by the C++ Standard:
#include <stdio.h>
int x[1];
int main(void) {
struct x { int a[2]; };
/* size of the array in C */
/* size of the struct in C++ */
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof(x));
}
Inline functions in C default to external scope where as those in C++ do not.
Compiling the following two files together would print the "I am inline" in case of GNU C but nothing for C++.
File 1
#include <stdio.h>
struct fun{};
int main()
{
fun(); // In C, this calls the inline function from file 2 where as in C++
// this would create a variable of struct fun
return 0;
}
File 2
#include <stdio.h>
inline void fun(void)
{
printf("I am inline\n");
}
Also, C++ implicitly treats any const global as static unless it is explicitly declared extern, unlike C in which extern is the default.
#include <stdio.h>
struct A {
double a[32];
};
int main() {
struct B {
struct A {
short a, b;
} a;
};
printf("%d\n", sizeof(struct A));
return 0;
}
This program prints 128 (32 * sizeof(double)) when compiled using a C++ compiler and 4 when compiled using a C compiler.
This is because C does not have the notion of scope resolution. In C structures contained in other structures get put into the scope of the outer structure.
struct abort
{
int x;
};
int main()
{
abort();
return 0;
}
Returns with exit code of 0 in C++, or 3 in C.
This trick could probably be used to do something more interesting, but I couldn't think of a good way of creating a constructor that would be palatable to C. I tried making a similarly boring example with the copy constructor, that would let an argument be passed, albeit in a rather non-portable fashion:
struct exit
{
int x;
};
int main()
{
struct exit code;
code.x=1;
exit(code);
return 0;
}
VC++ 2005 refused to compile that in C++ mode, though, complaining about how "exit code" was redefined. (I think this is a compiler bug, unless I've suddenly forgotten how to program.) It exited with a process exit code of 1 when compiled as C though.
Don't forget the distinction between the C and C++ global namespaces. Suppose you have a foo.cpp
#include <cstdio>
void foo(int r)
{
printf("I am C++\n");
}
and a foo2.c
#include <stdio.h>
void foo(int r)
{
printf("I am C\n");
}
Now suppose you have a main.c and main.cpp which both look like this:
extern void foo(int);
int main(void)
{
foo(1);
return 0;
}
When compiled as C++, it will use the symbol in the C++ global namespace; in C it will use the C one:
$ diff main.cpp main.c
$ gcc -o test main.cpp foo.cpp foo2.c
$ ./test
I am C++
$ gcc -o test main.c foo.cpp foo2.c
$ ./test
I am C
int main(void) {
const int dim = 5;
int array[dim];
}
This is rather peculiar in that it is valid in C++ and in C99, C11, and C17 (though optional in C11, C17); but not valid in C89.
In C99+ it creates a variable-length array, which has its own peculiarities over normal arrays, as it has a runtime type instead of compile-time type, and sizeof array is not an integer constant expression in C. In C++ the type is wholly static.
If you try to add an initializer here:
int main(void) {
const int dim = 5;
int array[dim] = {0};
}
is valid C++ but not C, because variable-length arrays cannot have an initializer.
Empty structures have size 0 in C and 1 in C++:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {} Foo;
int main()
{
printf("%zd\n", sizeof(Foo));
return 0;
}
This concerns lvalues and rvalues in C and C++.
In the C programming language, both the pre-increment and the post-increment operators return rvalues, not lvalues. This means that they cannot be on the left side of the = assignment operator. Both these statements will give a compiler error in C:
int a = 5;
a++ = 2; /* error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment */
++a = 2; /* error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment */
In C++ however, the pre-increment operator returns an lvalue, while the post-increment operator returns an rvalue. It means that an expression with the pre-increment operator can be placed on the left side of the = assignment operator!
int a = 5;
a++ = 2; // error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
++a = 2; // No error: a gets assigned to 2!
Now why is this so? The post-increment increments the variable, and it returns the variable as it was before the increment happened. This is actually just an rvalue. The former value of the variable a is copied into a register as a temporary, and then a is incremented. But the former value of a is returned by the expression, it is an rvalue. It no longer represents the current content of the variable.
The pre-increment first increments the variable, and then it returns the variable as it became after the increment happened. In this case, we do not need to store the old value of the variable into a temporary register. We just retrieve the new value of the variable after it has been incremented. So the pre-increment returns an lvalue, it returns the variable a itself. We can use assign this lvalue to something else, it is like the following statement. This is an implicit conversion of lvalue into rvalue.
int x = a;
int x = ++a;
Since the pre-increment returns an lvalue, we can also assign something to it. The following two statements are identical. In the second assignment, first a is incremented, then its new value is overwritten with 2.
int a;
a = 2;
++a = 2; // Valid in C++.