undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjstimpfle1mo ago0 comments

Not sure why you're being downvoted. That's completely right. The example is silly. The code is obviously bad, doesn't matter if it's UB or not.

I'm also not convinced (yet) that the example really is UB: I agree reading a volatile is "a side effect" in some sense, and GP cited a paragraph that says just that. But GP doesn't clearly quote that it's a side effect on the object (or how a side effect on an object is defined). Reading an object doesn't mutate it after all.

But whatever language lawyer things, the code is obviously broken, with an obvious fix, so I'm not so interested in what its semantics should be. Here is the fix:

    volatile int x;
    // ...
    int val = x;  // volatile read
    printf("%x %d\n", val, val);

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

crote1mo ago· 4 in thread

The problem is that the function call as a whole is UB. Having the original example compile to the equivalent of

  volatile int x;
  int a = x;
  int b = x;
  printf("%x %d\n", a, b);

is equally valid as

  volatile int x;
  int a = x;
  int b = x;
  printf("%x %d\n", b, a);

, and neither needs to have the same output as your proposed fix.

C could've specified something like "arguments are evaluated left-to-right" or "if two arguments have the same expression, the expression is [only evaluated once]/[always evaluated twice]". But it didn't, so the developer is left gingerly navigating a minefield every time they use volatile.

indigo9451mo ago

Not only is "arguments are evaluated left-to-right" less easy to formalize than you think, it would also make all C code run slower, because the compiler would no longer be able to interleave computations for more efficient pipelining. The same goes for "expression is [only evaluated once]/[always evaluated twice]".

Of course the developer is navigating a minefield every time they use volatile, that's why it's called "volatile" - an English word otherwise only commonly used in chemistry, where it means "stuff that wants to go boom".

imtringued1mo ago

Your argument makes no sense since the developer is expected to perform manual sequencing. Correctly written UB free code cannot be interleaved either.

All you've achieved is that the standard C function call syntax can no longer be used as is.

remexre1mo ago

the compiler can still interleave anything it shows is side-effect free; it’s hard to show that something would benefit from being reordered without analyzing it well enough to determine what side effects it has

jstimpfleOP1mo ago

I understand, that's why I said the code is obviously broken. The problem is not about order of evaluation. It's not about an UB arising from unsequenced volatile reads or whatever.

The problem is simply that the there are two volatile reads where only one was intended. It doesn't matter if there is UB or not. The code doesn't express the intention either way. All you need to know to understand that is that volatile might be modified concurrently (a little bit similar but not the same semantics as atomics).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse