CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++visual-studio-2010visual-c++crashcompiler-optimization
m3tikn0b
m3tikn0b

Reputation: 1318

Crash in C++ code due to undefined behaviour or compiler bug?

I am experiencing strange crashes. And I wonder whether it is a bug in my code, or the compiler. When I compile the following C++ code with Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 as an optimized release build, it crashes in the marked line:

struct tup { int x; int y; };

class C 
{
public:
  struct tup* p;

  struct tup* operator--() { return --p; }
  struct tup* operator++(int) { return p++; }

  virtual void Reset() { p = 0;}
};

int main ()
{
  C c;
  volatile int x = 0;
  struct tup v1;
  struct tup v2 = {0, x};

  c.p = &v1;
  (*(c++)) = v2;

  struct tup i = (*(--c));   // crash! (dereferencing a NULL-pointer)
  return i.x;
}

Looking into the disassembly, it's obvious that it must crash:

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
00CE1000  push        ebp  
00CE1001  mov         ebp,esp  
00CE1003  sub         esp,0Ch  
  C c;
  volatile int x = 0;
00CE1006  xor         eax,eax  
00CE1008  mov         dword ptr [x],eax  
  struct tup v1;
  struct tup v2 = {0, x};
00CE100B  mov         ecx,dword ptr [x]  

  c.p = &v1;
  (*(c++)) = v2;
00CE100E  mov         dword ptr [ebp-8],ecx  

  struct tup i = (*(--c));
00CE1011  mov         ecx,dword ptr [x]  
00CE1014  mov         dword ptr [v1],eax  
00CE1017  mov         eax,dword ptr [ecx]  
00CE1019  mov         ecx,dword ptr [ecx+4]  
00CE101C  mov         dword ptr [ebp-8],ecx  
return i.x;
}
00CE101F  mov         esp,ebp  
00CE1021  pop         ebp  
00CE1022  ret

At offset 00CE1008 it writes a 0 into x.

At offset 00CE100B it reads x (the 0) into ecx

At offset 00CE1017 it dereferences that 0-pointer.

I see two possible reasons:

Does anyone see what might cause the problem?

Thank you,

Jonas

EDIT: To address the comments regarding "pointer to invalid location"

If I change v1 to be struct tup v1[10]; and set c.p = &v1[0];, then there will be no pointer to an invalid location. But I can still observe the same behaviour. The disassembly looks marginally different, but there is still a crash and it is still caused by loading 0 into ecx and dereferencing it.

EDIT: Conclusion

So, probably it is a bug. I found out that the crash vanishes if I change

struct tup* operator--() { return --p; }

to

struct tup* operator--() { --p; return p; }

As bames53 tells us, the crash does not occur in VS2011 and concludes that it must have been fixed.

Nontheless, I decided to file that bug for two reasons:

Here is the link:

https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/741628/error-in-code-generation-for-x86

Upvotes: 16

Views: 789

Answers (3)

R. Martinho Fernandes
R. Martinho Fernandes

Reputation: 234354

The code is fine. It's a compiler bug.

The code *(c++) = v2 will post-increment c.p yielding the original value. That value was assigned in the previous line and is &v1. So, in effect, it does v1 = v2;, which is perfectly fine.

c.p now behaves as a one-past-the-end of a one element array that holds only v1, per §5.7p4 of the standard:

For the purposes of these operators [+ and -], a pointer to a nonarray object behaves the same as a pointer to the first element of an array of length one with the type of the object as its element type.

Then *(--c) moves that pointer back to &v1 and dereferences it, which is also fine.

Upvotes: 17

Puppy
Puppy

Reputation: 146900

It doesn't have to be UB or compiler bug. It can be neither due to the way that VS2010 was produced.

Strictly speaking, your program exhibits well-defined behaviour. However, that might only be according to the newest C++ Standard. VS2010 is only implemented against a draft Standard which may not have included this provision. If it did not, then your code is not UB, but VS is not incorrect to produce UB, as those were the requirements of the time it was made.

Of course, if it's been legal to treat stack objects as an array of one object in C++03, then it is a compiler bug.

Edit: If you still get the crash for an array as you state, then that is definitely a compiler bug.

Upvotes: 1

Daniel
Daniel

Reputation: 31559

You take &v1 into c.p and later using operator ++ you advance it. You cannot rely on the ordering of the stack, therefore comes undefined behavior ((&v1)+1 != &v2)

Upvotes: -3

Related Questions