Few doubts about casting operators in C++ - c++

The reinterpret_cast as we know can cast any pointer type to any another pointer type. The question I want to ask regarding this cast operator are:
How does reinterpret_cast work, What is the magic(the internal implementation) that allows reinterpret_cast to work?
How to ensure safety when using reinterpret_cast? As far as i know, it doesn't guarantee of safe casting, So what precaution to take while using reinterpret_cast?
What is the practical usage of this operator. I have not really encountered it in my professional programing experience, wherein I could'nt get around without using this operator.Any practical examples apart from usual int* to char* will be highly helpful and appreciated.
One other Question regarding casting operators in general:
Casting operators(static_cast, dynamic_cast, const_cast, reinterpret_cast) are all called Operators i.e is to the best of my understanding, So is it correct statement to make that casting operators cannot be overloaded unlike most other operators (I am aware not all operators can be overloaded and I am aware of which can't be(except the Q I am asking, Please refrain flaming me on that) Just I had this doubt that since they are operators, what does the standard say about these?

There is no magic. reinterpret_cast normally just means (at least try to) treat what you find at this address as if it was the type I've specified. The standard defines little enough about what it does that it could be different from that, but it rarely (if ever) really is.
In a few cases, you can get safety from something like a discriminated union. For example, if you're reading network packets, and read enough to see that what you've received is a TCP packet, then you can (fairly) safely do a reinterpret_cast from IPHdr to TCPHdr (or whatever names you happen to have used). The compiler won't (again, normally) do much though -- any safety is up to you to implement and enforce.
I've used code like I describe in 2), dealing with different types of network packets.
For your final question: you can overload casting for a class:
class XXX {
public:
operator YYY() { return whatever; }
};
This can be used for conversions in general though -- whether done by a static_cast, C-style cast, or even an implicit conversion. C++0x allows you to add an explicit qualifier so it won't be used for implicit conversions, but there's still no way to differentiate between a static_cast and a C-style cast though.

First, it's unclear what you mean by "non-standard pointer". I think your premise is flawed. Happily it doesn't seem to affect the questions.
"How does [it] work?" Well, the intent, as you can guess from the name, is to just change the interpretation of a bitpattern, perhaps extending or shorting as appropriate. This is a kind of change of type where the bitpattern is left unchanged but the interpretation and hence conceptual value is changed. And it's in contrast to a kind of change of type where the conceptual value is kept (e.g. int converted to double) while the bitpattern is changed as necessary to keep the conceptual value. But most cases of reinterpret_cast have implementation defined effect, so for those cases your compiler can do whatever it wants -- not necessarily keeping the bitpattern -- as long as it is documented.
"How to ensure safety" That is about knowing what your compiler does, and about avoiding reinterpret_cast. :-)
"What is the practical usage". Mostly it is about recovering type information that's been lost in C-oriented code where void* pointers are used to sort of emulate polymorphism.
Cheers & hth.,

reinterpret_cast generally lets you do some very bad things. In the case of casting a pointer it will permit casting from one type to another which has absolutely no reason to assume this should work. It's like saying "trust me I really want to do this". What exactly this does is unpredictable from one system to the next. On your system it might just copy the bit-patterns, where as on another one it could transform them in some (potentially useful) way.
e.g.
class Foo {
int a;
};
class Bar {
int a;
};
int main() {
Foo a;
// No inheritance relationship and not void* so must be reinterpret_cast
// if you really want to do it
Bar *b = reinterpret_cast<Bar*>(&a);
char buffer[sizeof(Bar)];
Bar *c = reinterpret_cast<Bar*>(buffer); // alignment?
}
Will quite happily let you do that, no matter what the scenario. Sometimes if you're doing low-level manipulation of things this might actually be what you want to do. (Imagine char * of a buffer casting to something user defined type)
Potential pitfalls are huge, even in the simplest case like a buffer, where alignment may well be a problem.
With dlsym() on Linux it's useful to be able to cast void* to a function pointer, which is otherwise undefined behaviour in C++. (Some systems might use separate address spaces or different size pointers!). This can only be done with reinterpret_cast in C++.

reinterpret_cast only works on pointers. The way it works is that it leaves the value of the pointer alone and changes the assumed type information about it. It says, "I know these types are not equivalent, but I want you to just pretend this is now a pointer to T2." Of course, this can cause any number of problems if you use the T2 pointer and it does not point to a T2.
There are very few guarantees about reinterpret_cast, which is why it is to be so avoided. You're really only allowed to cast from T1 to T2 and then back to T1 and know that, given some assumptions, that the final result will be the same as what you started with.
The only one I can think of is casting a char* to an unsigned char*. I know that the underlying representation is the same in my implementation so I know the cast is safe. I can't use a static cast though because it's a pointer to a buffer. In reality, you'll find very little legitimate use of reinterpret_cast in the real world.
Yes, they are operators. AFAIK you can't override them.

One "practical" use of reinterpret_cast.
I have a class where the members are not meant to be read. Example below
class ClassWithHiddenVariables
{
private:
int a;
double m;
public:
void SetVariables(int s, int d)
{
a = s;
m = d;
}
};
This class is used in a thousand places in an application without a problem.
Now, because of some reason I want see the members in one specific part. However, I don't want to touch the existing class.So break the rules as follows.
Create another class with the same bit pattern and public visibility. Here the original class contains an int and double.
class ExposeAnotherClass
{
public:
int a_exposed;
double m_exposed;
};
When you want to see members of the ClassWithHiddenVariables object, use reinterpret_cast to cast to ExposeAnotherClass. Example follows
ClassWithHiddenVariables obj;
obj.SetVariables(10, 20.02);
ExposeAnotherClass *ptrExposedClass;
ptrExposedClass = reinterpret_cast<ExposeAnotherClass*>(&obj);
cout<<ptrExposedClass->a_exposed<<"\n"<<ptrExposedClass->m_exposed;
I don't think this situation ever occurs in real world. But this is just an explanation of reinterpret_cast which considers objects as bit patterns.

reinterpret_cast tells the compiler "shut up, it's a variable of type T*" and there's no safety unless it is really a variable of type T*. On most implementations just nothing is done - the same value in the variable is passed to the destination.
Your class can have conversion operators to any type T* and those conversions will either be invokde implicitly under certain conditions or you can invoke them explicitly using static_cast.

I've used reinterpret_cast a lot in Windows programming. Message handling uses WPARAM and LPARAM parameters that need casting to the correct types.

reinterpret_cast is pretty equivalent to a C-style cast. It doesn't guarentee anything; it's there to allow you to do what you need to, in the hopes that you know what you're doing.
If you're looking to ensure safety, use dynamic_cast, as that's what it does. If the cast cannot be completed safely, dynamic_cast returns NULL or nullptr (C++0x).
Casting using the "casting operators" such as static_cast, dynamic_cast, etc.. cannot be overloaded. Straight conversions can, such as:
class Degrees
{
public:
operator double() { ... }
};

The reinterpret_cast as we know can
cast any non-standard pointer to
another non-standard pointer.
Almost, but not exactly. For example, you can't use reinterpret_cast to cast a const int* to an int*. For that, you need const_cast.
How does reinterpret_cast work, What is the magic(the internal
implementation) that allows
reinterpret_cast to work?
There's no magic at all. Ultimately, all data is just bytes. The C++ type system is merely an abstraction layer which tells the compiler how to "interpret" each byte. A reinterpret_cast is similar to a plain C-cast, in that it simply says "to hell with the type system: interpret these bytes as type X instead of type Y!"
How to ensure safety when using reinterpret_cast? As far as i know, it
doesn't guarantee of safe casting, So
what precaution to take while using
reinterpret_cast?
Well, reinterpret_cast is inherently dangerous. You shouldn't use it unless you really know what you're doing. Try to use static_cast instead. The C++ type system will protect you from doing anything too dangerous if you use static_cast.
What is the practical usage of this operator. I have not really
encountered it in my professional
programing experience, wherein I
could'nt get around without using this
operator.Any practical examples apart
from usual int* to char* will be
highly helpful and appreciated.
It has many uses, but usually these uses are somewhat "advanced". For example, if you are creating a memory pool of linked blocks, and storing pointers to free blocks on the blocks themselves, you'll need to reinterpret_cast a block from a T* to a T** to interpret the block as a pointer to the next block, rather than a block itself.

Related

C++ strict-aliasing agnostic cast

I've read lots of QAs about strict aliasing here in Stack Overflow but all they are pretty common and discussion always tends to refer to deep-deep details of C++ standard which are almost always are difficult to understand properly. Especially when standard do not say things directly but describes something in a muddy unclear way.
So, my question is probably a possible duplicate of tonns of QAs here, but, please, just answer a specific question:
Is it a correct way to do a "nonalias_cast"?:
template<class OUT, class IN>
inline auto nonalias_cast(IN *data) {
char *tmp = reinterpret_cast<char *>(data);
return reinterpret_cast<OUT>(tmp);
}
float f = 3.14;
unsigned *u = nonalias_cast<unsigned *>(&f);
*u = 0x3f800000;
// now f should be equal 1.0
I guess the answer is no. But is there any nice workaround? Except disabling strict-aliasing flag of course. Union is not a handy option as well unless there is a way to fit a union hack inside nonalias_cast function body. memcpy is not an option here as well - data change should be synchronysed.
An impossible dream or an elusive reality?
UPD:
Okay, since we've got a negative answer on "is it possible?" question, I'd like to ask you an extra-question which do bothers me:
How would you resolve this task? I mean there is a plenty of practical tasks which more-less demand a "play with a bits" approach. For instance assume you have to write a IEEE-754 Floating Point Converter like this. I'm more concerned with the practical side of the question: how to have a workaround to reach the goal? In a least "pain in ##$" way.
As the other answers have correctly pointed out: This is not possible as you are not allowed to access the float object through an unsigned pointer and there is no cast that will remove that rule.
So how do you work around this issue? Don't access the object through an unsigned pointer! Use a float* or char* for passing the object around, as those are the only pointer types that are allowed under strict aliasing. Then when you actually need to access the object under unsigned semantics, you do a memcpy from the float* to a local unsigned (and memcpy back once you are done). Your compiler will be smart enough to generate efficient code for this.
Note that this means that you will have float* everywhere on your interfaces instead of unsigned*. And that is exactly what makes this work: The type system is aware of the correct data types at all times. Things only start to crumble if you try to smuggle a float through the type system as an unsigned*, which you'll hopefully agree is kind of a fishy idea in the first place.
Is it a correct way to do a "nonalias_cast"?
No.
But is there any nice workaround?
Again, no.
Reason for both is simply that &f is not the address of some object of type unsigned int, and no amount of casting on the pointer is going to change that.
No, your nonalias_cast does not work, and cannot work.
Type aliasing rules are not (directly) about converting pointers. In fact, none of your conversions have undefined behaviour. The rules are about accessing an object of certain type, through a pointer of another type.
No matter how you convert the pointer, the pointed object is still a float object, and accessing it through an unsigned pointer violates type aliasing rules.
An impossible dream or an elusive reality?
In standard C++, it is impossible.

Safely casting struct pointers

I had always thought that checking the pointer after casting a void* to a struct* was a valid way to avoid invalid casts. Something like
MyStructOne* pStructOne = (MyStructOne*)someVoidPointer;
if(!pStructOne)
return 0;
It appears that this is not the case as I can cast the same data to two different structs and get the same valid address. The program is then happy to populate my struct fields with whatever random data is in there.
What is a safe way of casting struct pointers?
I can't use dynamic_cast<> as it's not a class.
Thanks for the help!
If you have any control over the struct layout you can put your own type enumeration at the front of every struct to verify the type. This works in both C and C++.
If you can't use an enumeration because not all types are known ahead of time, you can use a GUID. Or a pointer to static variable or member that is unique per struct.
You can use dynamic_cast with structs or classes, as long as it has a virtual method. I would suggest you redesign your broader system to not have void*s anywhere. It's very bad practice/design.
There is no "safe way of casting" in general, because casting pointers is inherently an unsafe procedure. Casting says that you know better than the type system, so you can't expect the type system to be of any help after you started casting pointers.
In C++, you should never use C-style casts (like (T) x), and instead use the C++ casts. Now a few simple rules let you determine whether casting a pointer or reference is OK:
If you const_cast in the bad direction and modify the object, you must be sure that the object is actually mutable.
You can only static_cast pointers or references within a polymorphic hierarchy or from/to void pointer. You must be sure that the dynamic type of the object is a subtype of the cast target, or in the case of void pointers that pointer is the address of an object of the correct type.
reinterpret_cast should only be used to or from a char * type (possibly signed or unsigned), or to convert a pointer to and from an (u)intptr_t.
In every case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the pointers or references in question refer to an object of the type that you claim in the cast. There is no check that anyone else can do for you to verify this.
The (C-style) cast you are using is compile-time operation - that is to say that the compiler generates instructions to modify the pointer to one thing so that it points to another.
With inheritance relationships, this is simply addition or subtraction from the pointer.
In the case of your code, the compiler generates precisely no code whatsoever. The cast merely serves to tell the compiler that you know what you're doing.
The compiler does not generate any code that checks the validity of your operation. If someVoidPointer is null, so will be pStructOne after the cast. \
Using a dynamic_cast<>() doesn't validate that the thing being casted is actually an object at all - it merely tells you that an object with RTTI is (or can be converted to) the type you expect. If it's not an object to start with, you'll most likely get a crash.
There isn't one. And frankly, there can't be.
struct is simply an instruction for the compiler to treat the next sizeof() bytes in a particular semantic fashion - nothing less, nothing more.
You can cast any pointer into any pointer - all that changes is how the compiler would interpret the contents.
Using dynamic_cast<> is the only way, but it invokes RTTI (run type type information) to consider the potential legality of the assignment. Yeah, it's no longer an reinterpret_cast<>
It sounds like you want to make sure the object passed as a void* to your function is really the type you expect. The best approach would be to declare the function prototype with MyStructOne* instead of void* and let the compiler do the type checking.
If you really are trying to do something more dynamic (as in different types of objects can be passed to your function) you need to enable RTTI. This will allow you to interrogate the passed in object and ask it what type it is.
What is a safe way of casting struct pointers?
First, try to avoid needing to do this in the first place. Use forward declarations for structs if you don't want to include their headers. In general, you should only need to hide the data type from the signature if a function could take multiple types of data. The example for something like that is a message passing system, where you want to be able to pass arbitrary data. The sender and receiver know what types they expect, but the message system itself doesn't need to know.
Assuming you have no other alternatives, use a boost::any. This is essentially a type-safe void*; attempts to cast it to the wrong type will throw an exception. Note that this needs RTTI to work (which you generally should have available).
Note that boost::variant is a possibility if there is a fixed, limited set of possible types that can be used.
Since you have to use void*, your options are:
create a single base class including a virtual destructor (and/or other virtual methods) and use that exclusively across the libev interface. Wrap the libev interface to enforce this, and only use the wrappers from your C++ code. Then, inside your C++ code, you can dynamic_cast your base class.
accept that you don't have any runtime information about what type your void* really points to, and just structure your code so you always know statically. That is, make sure you cast to the correct type in the first place.
use the void* to store a simple tag/cookie/id structure, and use that to look up your real struct or whatever - this is really just a more manual version of #1 though, and incurs an extra indirection to boot.
And the direct answer to
What is a safe way of casting struct pointers?
is:
cast to the correct type, or a type you know to be layout compatible.
There just isn't any substitute for knowing statically what the correct type is. You presumably passed something in as a void*, so when you get that void* back you should be able to know what type it was.

Type(variable) vs (Type)variable [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between (type)value and type(value)?
I am mainly a C# developer and so do a lot of explicit casting using syntax like: (type)variable, with (int)100.0004d as an example. As such, when writing code in C++, I often use the same syntax. However, I have seen (and even used) code in other cases where the same cast is achieved using the syntax type(variable) with int(100.0004) as an example.
I was just curious as to what the difference between the two methods were and whether there were any implications in using one over the other.
Example:
double someDouble = 100.00456;
// Cast the double using the (type)variable syntax
int firstCastValue = (int)someDouble;
// Cast the double using the type(variable) syntax
int secondCastValue = int(someDouble);
The two are exactly the same, and this is true for any type.
Personally, I would avoid the first form, (T)x, in favour of an explicit static cast:
y = static_cast<T>(x);
This expresses that you want to convert x to the type T.
The second form is rather more evocative of a constructor call, and that's sometimes preferable:
v = std::vector<int>(10); // not: v = static_cast<std::vector<int>>(10)
To repeat, both forms are entirely equivalent, and it's a matter of taste which you prefer. I would use static cast for "converting" and constructor-syntax for "constructing", if that makes any sense.
None. They're exactly the same. But this is C++, and you should not use C-style casts between types. static_cast<int>(someDouble) is what you're looking for.
They will do the same operation. However,
(int)someDouble is a C-style cast, which is discouraged in C++. Don't use it. Ever.
int(someDouble) syntax is not a cast as such, it's an explicit request to create a temporary. It allows creating temporary using constructor with more than 1 argument and creating a temporary using explicit constructor. On the other hand it does not allow casting to types that are not named by single identifier (so no pointers, no unsigned long etc.). Normally used when your intention is really to have a temporary of some complex type, i.e. one with non-trivial constructor.
static_cast<int>(someDouble) is what you really should use most of the time. It will cast between any convertible types and between pointers of related types only. Which is what you should limit yourself to most of the time.
There are other flavors of *_cast, namely:
dynamic_cast<Something *>(pAnything) will check at runtime that the pointer actually points to the specified type and return NULL if it does not. Also usable with references like dynamic_cast<Something &>(anything) in which case it throws a std::bad_cast exception if it is not of the correct type. This is like the C# anything as Something.
const_cast<Something *>(constSomething) is only capable of removing const qualifier; the other *_cast will refuse to. If you need this, you have design problem.
reinterpret_cast<Something *>(pUnrelated) will cast unrelated pointers. Since in C++ a pointer cast is not necessarily a trivial operation (adds/subtracts offset for multiply-inherited objects), it is usually a bad idea and should only be used if you are doing something clever. In fact I am not sure there is a use of reinterpret_cast that would not violate "strict aliasing rules" and therefore be platform-dependent. The reason that C-style cast decays to reinterpret cast when the pointers are unrelated is why it should never be used.

why reinterpret_cast still is in use when it dangerous [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why do we have reinterpret_cast in C++ when two chained static_cast can do it's job?
I have been suggested that i should not use reinterpret_cast or const_cast in case of pointer to pointer conversion. Only dynamic_cast should be used.Because other cast can create problem in future. So my question is why not reinterpret_cast or other cast which is dangerous has been removed from c++ standard.
Because there are times when you need a cast which does what reinterpret_cast does. As for dynamic_cast, I almost never use this cast; that's only for casting from a parent type to a more derived type. Most of the time I can prove which child type I'm working with, and I use static_cast. I also use static_cast for compile time type conversions, for example from signed to unsigned integers.
static_cast, not dynamic_cast, is the most common kind of cast. If your design relies on dynamic_cast too heavily, that's a code smell indicating your class hierarchy violates LSP in most cases.
In the real world, you frequently have to cast pointers in ways the compiler/runtime can't validate. For example, in pthreads you pass a void* to the new thread's start routine. Sometimes that arg is actually a class? The compiler has no way to tell. It's one of those "real life" issues.
Incidentally I find myself using dynamic_cast infrequently. My main use for is has been exception type scraping in catch blocks.
They are dangerous but sometimes you need them.
C++ is not know for removing constructs that are dangerous to the new user. We will let you run with those scissors (while eating cake).
What makes them good is that the dangerous code sticks out so it is easy to spot. So when people do code reviews they can quickly spot the stuff that is dangerous and add a little scrutiny more checking.
Use reinterpret_cast for casting between unrelated pointer types.
Use static_cast for explicit, supported conversions.
Use dynamic_cast to cast a pointer of one type to a pointer of a derived type.
If you know a pointer to a parent type points to a child type, you can safely static_cast from the parent type to the child type. A cast from a child type pointer to a parent type pointer is implicit and requires no explicit cast.
A reinterpret_cast example from my own code base:
unsigned int CTaskManager::CWorker::WorkerMain(void* Parameters)
{
CWorker* This = reinterpret_cast<CWorker*>(Parameters);
// ...
}
bool CTaskManager::CWorker::Initialize()
{
// ...
// Create worker.
m_ThreadHandle = reinterpret_cast<HANDLE>(_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, &(WorkerMain), this, 0, NULL));
// ...
}
A lot of dangerous operations, though they should generally be avoided, do have a rare legitimate usage. Furthermore, the rule of thumb when it comes to language features and APIs is that once it's there, you can't get rid of it; removing a feature from the C++ language has the potential to break lots of existing C++ code. Typically removal of features requires demonstration that it is not used or that the use is so limited that the cost impact of getting rid of it would be small. Even trigraphs, which are almost never used (unless you are at IBM) and which people wanted to get rid of survived the axe. These various casts and other usually dangerous operations are used way, way more than trigraphs are.

C++: Safe way to cast an integer to a pointer

I need to convert an integral type which contains an address to the actual pointer type. I could use reinterpret_cast as follows:
MyClass *mc1 = reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(the_integer);
However, this does not perform any run-time checks to see if the address in question actually holds a MyClass object. I want to know if there is any benefit in first converting to a void* (using reinterpret_cast) and then using dynamic_cast on the result. Like this:
void *p = reinterpret_cast<void*>(the_integer);
MyClass *mc1 = dynamic_cast<MyClass*>(p);
assert(mc1 != NULL);
Is there any advantage in using the second method?
Type checking on dynamic_cast is implemented in different ways by different C++ implementations; if you want an answer for your specific implementation you should mention what implementation you are using. The only way to answer the question in general is to refer to ISO standard C++.
By my reading of the standard, calling dynamic_cast on a void pointer is illegal:
dynamic_cast<T>(v)
"If T is a pointer type, v shall be an rvalue of a pointer to complete class type"
(from 5.2.7.2 of the ISO C++ standard). void is not a complete class type, so the expression is illegal.
Interestingly, the type being cast to is allowed to be a void pointer, i.e.
void * foo = dynamic_cast<void *>(some_pointer);
In this case, the dynamic_cast always succeeds, and the resultant value is a pointer to the most-derived object pointed to by v.
No, there's no specific advantage in doing so. The moment you use reinterpret_cast, all bets are off. It's up to you to be sure the cast is valid.
Actually no serious advantage. If the void* points to something that is not a pointer to a polymorphic object you run into undefined behaviour (usually an access violation) immediately.
The safe way is to keep a record of all live MyClass objects. It's best to keep this record in a std::set<void*>, which means you can easily add, remove and test elements.
The reason for storing them as void*s is that you don't risk nastyness like creating unaligned MyClass* pointers from your integers.
First of all "reinterpreting" int to void * is a bad idea. If sizeof(int) is 4 and sizeof(void *) is 8 (64x system) it is ill-formed.
Moreover dynamic_cast is valid only for the case of the polymorphic classes.
Option 1 is your only (semi) portable/valid option.
Option 2: is not valid C++ as the dynamic_cast (as void is not allowed).
At an implementation level it requires type information from the source type to get to the destination type. There is no way (or there may be no way) to get the runtime source type information from a void* so this is not valid either.
Dynamic_Cast is used to cas up and down the type hierarchy not from unknown types.
As a side note you should probably be using void* rather than an integer to store an untyped pointer. There is potential for an int not to be large enough to store a pointer.
The safest way to handle pointers in C++ is to handle them typesafe. This means:
Never store pointers in anything else than a pointer
Avoid void pointers
Never pass pointers to other processes
consider weak_ptr if you plan to use pointers over threads
The reason for this is: what you are planning to do is unsafe and can be avoided unless you're interfacing with unsafe (legacy?) code. In this case consider MSalters' answer, but be aware that it still is a hassle.
If you know for sure that the_integer points to a known base class (that has at least one virtual member), there might in fact be an advantage: knowing that the object is of a specific derived class. But you’d have to reinterpret_cast to your base class first and then do the dynamic_cast:
BaseClass* obj = reinterpret_cast<BaseClass*>(the_integer);
MyClass* myObj = dynamic_cast<BaseClass*>(obj);
Using a void* in dynamic_cast is useless and simply wrong. You cannot use dynamic_cast to check if there’s a valid object at some arbitrary location in memory.
You should also pay attention when storing addresses in non-pointer type variables. There are architectures where sizeof(void*) != sizeof(int), e.g. LP64.