Which is totally fine and expected for any decent programmer. Casting pointers is clearly here be dragons territory.

Many, many programmers come to C (and C++) with a lower-level understanding that actually gets in the way here. They understand that all types "are" just bytes and that all pointers "are" just register-sized integer addresses, because that's how the hardware works and has worked for decades.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect any load through `int*` to just load 4 bytes from memory, done and done. They get surprised that it is far from the whole story, and the result is UB.

Meanwhile, the actual computers we have been using for decades have no problems actually just loading 4 bytes through any arbitrary pointer with zero overhead. But no.

▲

lelanthran 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They understand that all types "are" just bytes and that all pointers "are" just register-sized integer addresses, because that's how the hardware works and has worked for decades.

I'd clarify this with "They understand that all values are just bytes".

> Meanwhile, the actual computers we have been using for decades have no problems actually just loading 4 bytes through any arbitrary pointer with zero overhead.

It's partly the standards fault here - rather than saying "We don't know how vendors will implement this, so we shall leave it as implementation-defined", they say "We don't know how vendors will implement this, so we will leave it as undefined".

A clear majority of the UB problems with C could be fixed if the standards committee slowly moved all UB into IB. It's not that there isn't any progress (Signed twos-complement is coming, after all), it's that there is (I believe) much pushback from compiler authors (who dominate the standards) who don't want to make UB into IB.

▲

benj111 an hour ago | parent [-]

>It's partly the standards fault here - rather than saying "We don't know how vendors will implement this, so we shall leave it as implementation-defined", they say "We don't know how vendors will implement this, so we will leave it as undefined

I'd agree to a point. I still think it's unreasonable for compiler writers to get all lawyery about precise terminology. After all "implementation defined" could still be subject to the same lawyeriness (we implemented it, ergo we define it).

To me this is an issue of culture. We need to push back against the view that UB means anything can happen, therefore the compiler can do anything.

▲

fc417fc802 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

But it's genuinely useful. In all seriousness, are you sure you aren't perhaps just using the wrong language? At this point UB and leveraging it for optimization are core parts of the most performant C implementations.

That said, I think there are many cases where compilers could make a better effort to link UB they're optimizing against to UB that appears in the code as originally authored and emit a diagnostic or even error out. But at least we've got ubsan and friends so it seems like things are within reason if not optimal.

	▲	benj111 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>are you sure you aren't perhaps just using the wrong language Well I think there is a tension here. C is the language for microcontrollers and the language for high performance. In ye olden days both groups interests were aligned because speed in C was about working with the machine. Now the UB has been highjacked for speed, that microcontroller that I'm working on, where I know and int will overflow and rely on that is UB so may be optimised out, so I then have to think about what the compiler may do. I wouldn't say C is the wrong language. I would say there are wrong compilers though.

▲

pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except ARM32. ARM64 doesn't guarantee it to be valid in all cases either.