Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: int a = a Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:34:30 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 104 Message-ID: <87sen8u5d5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 21:34:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b2adc3539d30183fea78a893643ef1f"; logging-data="1732094"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Km+ZHsg4QUP9vidfjOTnh" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:n6GIGwPgFW7J14D2BgW0XIaIZws= sha1:aET8iEVakIDK5umappGOQemqqfI= Bytes: 6175 David Brown writes: [...] > As far as I understand it (and I hope to be corrected if I am wrong), Your hope is about to be fulfilled. > "int a = a;" is not undefined behaviour as long as the implementation > does not have trap values for "int". It simply leaves "a" as an > unspecified value - just like "int a;" does. Thus it is not in any > way "worse" than "int a;" as far as C semantics are concerned. Any > difference is a matter of implementation - and the usual > implementation effect is to disable "not initialised" warnings. The behavior is undefined. In C11 and later (N1570 6.3.2.1p2): Except when [...] an lvalue that does not have array type is converted to the value stored in the designated object (and is no longer an lvalue); this is called lvalue conversion. [...] If the lvalue designates an object of automatic storage duration that could have been declared with the register storage class (never had its address taken), and that object is uninitialized (not declared with an initializer and no assignment to it has been performed prior to use), the behavior is undefined. > It is in much the same category as "(void) x;", which is an idiom for > skipping an "unused variable" or "unused parameter" warning. Unless I'm missing something, `(void)x` also has undefined beahvior if x is uninitialized, though it's very likely to do nothing in practice. Long digression follows. The "could have been declared with the register storage class" seems quite odd. And in fact it is quite odd. It's tempting to assume that `int n = n;` did not have undefined behavior prior to C11, or that accessing an automatic object whose address has not been taken does not have undefined behavior even in C11 or later, but it's not that simple. In C90, the non-normative Annex G (renamed to Annex J in later editions) says: The behavior in the following circumstances is undefined: [...] - The value of an uninitialized object that has automatic storage duration is used before a value is assigned (6.5.7). 6.5.7 discusses initialization, and says that "If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized explicitly, its value is indeterminate", and C90's definition of "undefined behavior" explicitly refers to use of indeterminately valued objects, though it's not 100% clear that using an indeterminate value *always* has undefined behavior. So in C90, `int n = n;` explicitly had undefined behavior, even if all possible bit representations for an object of type int correspond to valid values (C90 didn't mention "trap representations"). C99 added a definition for "indeterminate value": "either an unspecified value or a trap representation", and drops the mention of indeterminate values in the definition of "undefined behavior". It dropped the reference to uninitialized objects in Annex G/J. I believe that in C99, `int n = n;` is well defined *if* int has no trap representations, or if the representation stored in the memory occupied by n happens not to be a trap representation. If int has trap representations, and that memory happens to contain such a representation, the behavior is undefined. I found a discussion in comp.std.c from 2023, subject "Does reading an uninitialized object have undefined behavior?". The discontinued IA-64/Itanium processor had something called "NaT", "Not a Thing". NaT representations exist only in CPU registers, not in memory. (Imagine an extra bit for each register indicating whether the register contains a "thing".) A NaT allows for representations that act like C trap representations (called non-value representations in C23) even for types with no trap representations (for example where all 2**N possible representations correspond to valid values) -- but again, only in CPU registers. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_338.htm So the "could have been declared with the register storage class" wording was added in C11 specifically to cater to the IA64. This change would have been superfluous in C90, where the behavior was undefined anyway, but is a semantically significant change between C99 and C11. (If some future CPU has something like NaT that can be stored in memory, the wording might need to be updated yet again.) My takeaway is that if it requires this much research to determine whether accessing the value of an uninitialized object has undefined behavior (in which circumstances and which edition of the standard), I'll just avoid doing so altogether. I'll initialize objects when they're defined whenever practical. If it's not practical for some reason, I won't initialize it with some dummy value; I'll leave it uninitialized so the compiler has a chance to warn me if I accidentally use it before assigning a value to it. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */