Invalid values for integers

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?=]

I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
Is this right?

From what I understand, it seems that unsigned integers shouldn't
have any trap values seeing as how every bit-pattern is a unique number.
Also, from what I understand, the only time you could have a "trap
value" is where you're working with a sign-magnitude machine and the
machine doesn't like negative 0. Presumably, on such a machine, the
following would crash:

int i, j;

i = 0;

i |= 0x800;

j = i; /* Crashes because we've got a trap pattern */

Do I understand this alright? Are there any other trap values?

Also, what happens when you set padding bits within integers. For
instance, let's day we have a machine where:

CHAR_BIT == 8
sizeof(int) == 6 (4 bytes for value, 2 bytes of padding)

On this machine, is it OK to do the following:

unsigned i, j;

memset(&i,0x3f, sizeof(int));

j = i;

Can this cause a crash? If so, what kind of crash is it? Do we call this
a "trap value" also?

--
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

[Richard Bos]

Re: Invalid values for integers

"=?iso-8859-1?q?Tom=E1s_=D3 _h=C9ilidhe?=" <toe@lavabit.co mwrote:

I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
Is this right?

Not quite. It causes undefined behaviour, which means that it _may_
crash. Or raise a signal, or ignore the occurrance, or anything else.

Do I understand this alright? Are there any other trap values?

AFAICT, there aren't any in integers; but floating point types have more
room for trap values.

Also, what happens when you set padding bits within integers. For
instance, let's day we have a machine where:

Can this cause a crash?

It can cause UB. Note that a recent TC has (IIRC) outlawed padding bits
within normal unsigned ints, and someone will now undoubtedly remind me
whether it also does so for signed ones.

If so, what kind of crash is it? Do we call this a "trap value" also?

We call it undefined behaviour; the Standard does not distinguish
between various kinds of undefined behaviour, and they're all equally
undefined.

Richard

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Invalid values for integers

rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:

"=?iso-8859-1?q?Tom=E1s_=D3 _h=C9ilidhe?=" <toe@lavabit.co mwrote:
>

> I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
>you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
>Is this right?

>
Not quite. It causes undefined behaviour, which means that it _may_
crash. Or raise a signal, or ignore the occurrance, or anything else.
>

>Do I understand this alright? Are there any other trap values?

>
AFAICT, there aren't any in integers; but floating point types have more
room for trap values.
>

>Also, what happens when you set padding bits within integers. For
>instance, let's day we have a machine where:

>

>Can this cause a crash?

>
It can cause UB.
Note that a recent TC has (IIRC) outlawed padding bits
within normal unsigned ints, and someone will now undoubtedly remind me
whether it also does so for signed ones.

Well, I can't do that (because I don't know), but from my reading of
n1256.pdf (which I though had all the TCs merged) both signed and
unsigned ints can have trap representations made up from some
combinations of padding bits (a parity bit is given as an example).
They can't result from normal arithmetic (except from overflow in a
signed int) on normal values, but you could make one using memset as
shown.

You say the example is UB, but what causes the UB if unsigned int
can't have padding bits?

--
Ben.

[CBFalconer]

Re: Invalid values for integers

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

>
I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand,
if you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program
crashes. Is this right?

No. You can't set an int to a trap value, when accessing it as an
int (barring illegal operations). If such values exist they have
to be set by the system, or possibly by accessing the object as a
series of bytes (which have no trap values).

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Invalid values for integers

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <toe@lavabit.co mwrites:

I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
Is this right?

[...]

I think your question has already been answered, but there's at least
one point nobody has explicitly raised.

They're not called "trap values", they're called "trap
representations ". The whole point is that a trap representation
*doesn't* represent a value of the type.

Nothing in the C standard requires a program to "crash" (unless you
consider the result of calling abort() to be a crash). All the stuff
that you might expect to cause a crash (signed or floating-point
numeric overflow, access beyond an array, dereferencing a null or
invalid pointer, etc.) merely invokes undefined behavior. If you're
*lucky*, these things will cause your program to crash so you can find
the problem. If you're unlucky, your program will continue merrily
executing with bad data. The standard guarantees nothing.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Invalid values for integers

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrites :

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <toe@lavabit.co mwrites:

> I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
>you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
>Is this right?

[...]
>
I think your question has already been answered,

But not, unambiguously!

--
Ben.

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Invalid values for integers

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.comwrites:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

>>
>I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand,
>if you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program
>crashes. Is this right?

>
No. You can't set an int to a trap value, when accessing it as an
int (barring illegal operations). If such values exist they have
to be set by the system, or possibly by accessing the object as a
series of bytes (which have no trap values).

"by the system" is a bit vague. They can be the result of bit-wise
operations on signed values (always a worry, but probably outside of
your category "illegal") but not, I think, from any such operation on
unsigned integer values.

--
Ben.

[Nick Keighley]

Re: Invalid values for integers

On 20 Feb, 12:30, "Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <t...@lavabit.c omwrote:

   I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand, if
you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program crashes.
Is this right?
>
   From what I understand, it seems that unsigned integers shouldn't
have any trap values seeing as how every bit-pattern is a unique number.
Also, from what I understand, the only time you could have a "trap
value" is where you're working with a sign-magnitude machine and the
machine doesn't like negative 0. Presumably, on such a machine, the
following would crash:

1's complement also gives you a -0 (negative zero)
and I've used a machine that used this to trap uninitialised
values (not with a C compiler though)


<snip>


--
Nick Keighley

[CBFalconer]

Re: Invalid values for integers

Nick Keighley wrote:

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <t...@lavabit.c omwrote:
>

>I've heard of things called "trap values". From what I understand,
>if you set an integer variable to a trap value, then the program
>crashes. Is this right?
>>
>From what I understand, it seems that unsigned integers shouldn't
>have any trap values seeing as how every bit-pattern is a unique
>number. Also, from what I understand, the only time you could
>have a "trap value" is where you're working with a sign-magnitude
>machine and the machine doesn't like negative 0. Presumably, on
>such a machine, the following would crash:

>
1's complement also gives you a -0 (negative zero)
and I've used a machine that used this to trap uninitialised
values (not with a C compiler though)

1's complement never generates a -0 IF the arithmetic is performed
with a subtractor AND addition is performed by "complement and
subtract". With a little care you can have a C compiler system
that traps all uninitialized values.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[David Thompson]

Re: Invalid values for integers

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:01:58 GMT, rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:
<snip other points>

It can cause UB. Note that a recent TC has (IIRC) outlawed padding bits
within normal unsigned ints, and someone will now undoubtedly remind me
whether it also does so for signed ones.
>

YDNRC; you may have conflated some related things.

TC2 changed 6.2.6.2 to require that all-zero-bits is a valid
representation of value zero in all integer types (signed and
unsigned, and plain char which formally is neither). Thus IF there are
padding bits in an integer type, it must be valid to have padding = 0
when magnitude+sign_ if_any = 0.

TC2 also changed 7.18.1.1p3 about the conditions which require the
implemention to define [u]int{8,16,32,64} _t so they match (in fact
repeat) the requirements for those typedefs in p1 and p2.

C99 6.2.6.2p1 required that unsigned char have no padding bits, with
no such requirement on any other type, and this hasn't changed. Though
IF the implementation chooses to make plain char like unsigned char,
that must use the same representation and thus have no padding bits.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.ne t