Re: Two questions on arrays with size defined by variables

On 09.02.2025 21:55, James Kuyper wrote:

On 2/9/25 12:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 09.02.2025 18:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

[...] my test-wise - deliberately
wrong! - assignment to 'a[99]' produced also no compiler complaints,

>
BTW, it produced also no core dump or any other runtime error.
(But it is obviously severely wrong code anyway.)

 
Accessing an array beyond it's bounds has undefined behavior, whether or
not it is a VLA. "undefined behavior" means that the C standard imposes
no requirements on the behavior. In particular, it does not require a
diagnostic message, nor a core dump, nor any other kind of runtime error.

Yes. (There's reasons why I prefer programming languages with checks.)

[...]
In this particular case. however, it would be trivial to detect the
violation, but none of the compilers I've tested do so.

Yes, because it's a special case with a constant defined. But the
value may come from "outside", undetectable by the compiler and only
detectable during runtime if there's additional information maintained
(stored and checked).

When such code is accepted by an implementation, what is most likely to
happen is that the compiler will generate code that creates an array
containing "foobar", and which attempts to write a pointer to the first
element of that array to the location where a[99] should be, if a had at
least 100 elements. Depending upon what that piece of memory is being
used for, the results could be catastrophic, or completely innocuous, or
somewhere in-between.

Yes. That matches exactly my fears or expectations here [with "C"].

Janis