Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

C++11: reinterpreting array of structs as array of struct's member

Consider the following type:

struct S
{
    char v;
};

Given an array of const S, is it possible to, in a standard conformant way, reinterpret it as an array of const char whose elements correspond to the value of the member v for each of the original array's elements, and vice-versa? For example:

const S a1[] = { {'a'}, {'4'}, {'2'}, {'\0'} };
const char* a2 = reinterpret_cast< const char* >(a1);

for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
    std::cout << std::boolalpha << (a1[i].v == a2[i]) << ' ';

Is the code above portable and would it print true true true true? If not, is there any other way of achieving this?

Obviously, it is possible to create a new array and initialize it with the member v of each element of the original array, but the whole idea is to avoid creating a new array.

like image 567
Alberto Faria Avatar asked Jul 29 '16 23:07

Alberto Faria


2 Answers

Trivially, no - the struct may have padding. And that flat out breaks any reinterpretation as an array.

like image 198
MSalters Avatar answered Oct 18 '22 14:10

MSalters


Formally the struct may have padding so that its size is greater than 1.

I.e., formally you can't reinterpret_cast and have fully portable code, except for ¹an array of only one item.

But for the in-practice, some years ago someone asked if there was now any compiler that by default would give sizeof(T) > 1 for struct T{ char x; };. I have yet to see any example. So in practice one can just static_assert that the size is 1, and not worry at all that this static_assert will fail on some system.

I.e.,

S const a1[] = { {'a'}, {'4'}, {'2'}, {'\0'} };
static_assert( sizeof( S ) == 1, "!" );

char const* const a2 = reinterpret_cast<char const*>( a1 );

for( int i = 0; i < 4; ++i )
{
    assert( a1[i].v == a2[i] );
}

Since it's possible to interpret the C++14 and later standards in a way where the indexing has Undefined Behavior, based on a peculiar interpretation of "array" as referring to some original array, one might instead write this code in a more awkward and verbose but guaranteed valid way:

// I do not recommend this, but it's one way to avoid problems with some compiler that's
// based on an unreasonable, impractical interpretation of the C++14 standard.
#include <assert.h>
#include <new>

auto main() -> int
{
    struct S
    {
        char v;
    };

    int const compiler_specific_overhead    = 0;    // Redefine per compiler.
    // With value 0 for the overhead the internal workings here, what happens
    // in the machine code, is the same as /without/ this verbose work-around
    // for one impractical interpretation of the standard.
    int const n = 4;
    static_assert( sizeof( S ) == 1, "!" );
    char storage[n + compiler_specific_overhead]; 
    S* const a1 = ::new( storage ) S[n];
    assert( (void*)a1 == storage + compiler_specific_overhead );

    for( int i = 0; i < n; ++i ) { a1[i].v = "a42"[i]; }    //  Whatever

    // Here a2 points to items of the original `char` array, hence no indexing
    // UB even with impractical interpretation of the C++14 standard.
    // Note that the indexing-UB-free code from this point, is exactly the same
    // source code as the first code example that some claim has indexing UB.
    char const* const a2 = reinterpret_cast<char const*>( a1 );

    for( int i = 0; i < n; ++i )
    {
        assert( a1[i].v == a2[i] );
    }
}

Notes:
¹ The standard guarantees that there's no padding at the start of the struct.

like image 31
Cheers and hth. - Alf Avatar answered Oct 18 '22 16:10

Cheers and hth. - Alf