Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Memory protection between compilation units?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:01:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <20250615175532.971@kylheku.com>
References: <20250611153239.6bc43323@mateusz>
 <20250612102857.1632c026@mateusz> <20250612114200.143@kylheku.com>
 <102gjib$39la2$1@dont-email.me> <20250613141420.25d81b43@mateusz>
 <20250613165623.00004eb3@yahoo.com> <102kq3e$e9ts$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mjh5$31ckr$1@paganini.bofh.team> <102nab5$148mb$1@dont-email.me>
 <102nm7l$3333o$1@paganini.bofh.team>
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 03:01:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c1903d0d66bea197761554c29c759e9";
	logging-data="1298870"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+1Ys6cZ1ltEynP3hR1C0s5N6kGF5sSK4="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2zB48Wip0mDLgqS+WJkPBKbJcOg=

On 2025-06-15, Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
> Mateusz Viste <mateusz@not.gonna.tell> wrote:
>> 
>> That said, detecting out-of-bounds array access is no panacea. Memory
>> corruption can arise from various sources, such as dangling pointers or
>> poorly managed pointer arithmetic.
>
> AFAICS there is no reason for explicit pointer arithmetic in well
> written C programs.
 
LOL, you heard it here.

> Implicit pointer arithmetic (coming from array
> indexing) is done by compiler so should be no problem.  Like in

Array indexing *is* pointer arithmetic.

Are you not aware of this equivalence? 

   (E1)[(E2)]   <--->  *((E1) + (E2))

In fact, let's draw the commutative diagram

   (E1)[(E2)]   <--->  *((E1) + (E2))
      ^                     ^
      |                     |
      |                     |
      v                     v
   (E2)[(E1)]   <--->  *((E2) + (E1))

You're not saying anything here other than that you like the p[i]
/notation/ better than *(p + i), and &p[i] better than p + i.

Great, thanks for sharing!

You're not doing yourself any favor by confusing
"not styled in my taste" with "not well written".