Expressions "j = ++(i | i); and j = ++(i & i); should be a lvalue error?

前端 未结 5 1618
心在旅途
心在旅途 2020-12-02 22:03

I was expecting that in my following code:

#include 
int main(){
    int i = 10; 
    int j = 10;

    j = ++(i | i);
    printf(\"%d %d\\n\         


        
相关标签:
5条回答
  • 2020-12-02 22:43

    C11 (n1570), § 6.5.3.1 Prefix increment and decrement operators
    The operand of the prefix increment or decrement operator shall have atomic, qualified, or unqualified real or pointer type, and shall be a modifiable lvalue.

    C11 (n1570), § 6.3.2.1 Lvalues, arrays, and function designators
    A modifiable lvalue is an lvalue that does not have array type, does not have an incomplete type, does not have a const- qualified type, and if it is a structure or union, does not have any member (including, recursively, any member or element of all contained aggregates or unions) with a const- qualified type.

    C11 (n1570), § 6.3.2.1 Lvalues, arrays, and function designators
    An lvalue is an expression (with an object type other than void) that potentially designates an object.

    C11 (n1570), § 3. Terms, definitions, and symbols
    Object: Region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of which can represent values

    As far as I know, potentially means "capable of being but not yet in existence". But (i | i) is not capable of referencing a region a data storage in the execution environment. Therefore it is not an lvalue. This seems to be a bug in an old gcc version, fixed since. Update your compiler!

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-12-02 22:57

    Just a follow-up to my question . I added elaborate answer so that one can find it helpful.

    In my code expressions j = ++(i | i); and j = ++(i & i); are not caused for lvalue error ?

    Because of compiler optimization as @abelenky answered (i | i) == i and (i & i) == i. That is exactly CORRECT.

    In my compiler (gcc version 4.4.5), any expression that includes single variable and result is unchanged; optimized into a single variable (something called not an expression).

    for example:

    j = i | i      ==> j = i
    j = i & i      ==> j = i
    j = i * 1      ==> j = i
    j = i - i + i  ==> j = i 
    

    ==> means optimized to

    To observe it I written a small C code and disassemble that with gcc -S.

    C-Code: (read comments)

    #include<stdio.h>
    int main(){
        int i = 10; 
        int j = 10;
        j = i | i;      //==> j = i
            printf("%d %d", j, i);
        j = i & i;      //==> j = i
            printf("%d %d", j, i);
        j = i * 1;      //==> j = i
        printf("%d %d", j, i);
        j = i - i + i;  //==> j = i
        printf("%d %d", j, i);
    }
    

    assembly output: (read comments)

    main:
        pushl   %ebp
        movl    %esp, %ebp
        andl    $-16, %esp
        subl    $32, %esp
        movl    $10, 28(%esp)   // i 
        movl    $10, 24(%esp)   // j
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax  //j = i
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax  //j = i
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax  //j = i
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax  //j = i
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf  
    

    In above assembly code all expressions converted into following code:

    movl    28(%esp), %eax  
    movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    

    that is equivalent to j = i in C code. Thus j = ++(i | i); and and j = ++(i & i); are optimized to j = ++i.

    Notice: j = (i | i) is a statement where as expression (i | i) not a statement (nop) in C

    Hence my code could successfully compiled.

    Why j = ++(i ^ i); or j = ++(i * i); , j = ++(i | k); produce lvalue error on my compiler?

    Because either expression has the constant value or not modifiable lvalue (unoptimized expression).

    we can observe using asm code

    #include<stdio.h> 
    int main(){
        int i = 10; 
        int j = 10;
        j = i ^ i;
        printf("%d %d\n", j, i);
        j = i - i;
        printf("%d %d\n", j, i);
        j =  i * i;
        printf("%d %d\n", j, i);
        j =  i + i;
        printf("%d %d\n", j, i);        
        return 1;
    }
    

    assembly code: (read comments)

    main:
        pushl   %ebp
        movl    %esp, %ebp
        andl    $-16, %esp
        subl    $32, %esp
        movl    $10, 28(%esp)      // i
        movl    $10, 24(%esp)      // j
    
        movl    $0, 24(%esp)       // j = i ^ i;
                                   // optimized expression i^i = 0
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    $0, 24(%esp)      //j = i - i;
                                  // optimized expression i - i = 0
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax    //j =  i * i;
        imull   28(%esp), %eax
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    28(%esp), %eax   // j =  i + i;
        addl    %eax, %eax
        movl    %eax, 24(%esp)
    
        movl    $.LC0, %eax
        movl    28(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 8(%esp)
        movl    24(%esp), %edx
        movl    %edx, 4(%esp)
        movl    %eax, (%esp)
        call    printf
    
        movl    $1, %eax
        leave
    

    Hence so this produce an lvalue error because operand is not a modifiable lvalue. And non-uniform behavior is due to compiler optimization in gcc-4.4.

    Why new gcc compliers(or most of compilers) produce an lvalue error?

    Because evaluation of expression ++(i | i) and ++(i & i) prohibits actual defination of increment(++) operator.

    According to Dennis M. Ritchie's book "The C Programming Language" in section "2.8 Increment and Decrement Operators" page 44.

    The increment and decrement operators can only be applied to variables; an expression like (i+j)++ is illegal. The operand must be a modifiable lvalue of arithmetic or pointer type.

    I tested on new gcc compiler 4.47 here it produces error as I was expecting. I also tested on tcc compiler.

    Any feedback/ comments on this would be great.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-12-02 22:57

    I don't think at all it is an optimization error, because if it was, then there should not be any error in the first place. If ++(i | i) is optimized to ++(i), then there should not be any error, because (i) is an lvalue.

    IMHO, I think that the compiler sees (i | i) as an expression output, that, obviously, outputs rvalue, but the increment operator ++ expects an lvalue to change it, thus the error.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-12-02 23:04

    This is a bug that has been addressed in more recent GCC versions.

    It's probably because the compiler optimizes i & i to i and i | i to i. This also explains why the xor operator didn't work; i ^ i would be optimized to 0, which is not a modifiable lvalue.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-12-02 23:05

    You are right that it should not compile, and on most compilers, it does not compile.
    (Please specify exactly which compiler/version is NOT giving you a compiler error)

    I can only hypothesize that the compiler knows the identities that (i | i) == i and (i & i) == i and is using those identities to optimize away the expression, just leaving behind the variable i.

    This is just a guess, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

    0 讨论(0)
提交回复
热议问题