Is undefined behavior only an issue if you are deploying on several platforms?

Most of the conversations around undefined behavior (UB) talk about how there are some platforms that can do this, or some compilers do that.

What if you are only interested in one platform and only one compiler (same version) and you know you will be using them for years?

Nothing is changing but the code, and the UB is not implementation-defined.

Once the UB has manifested for that architecture and that compiler and you have tested, can't you assume that from then on whatever the compiler did with the UB the first time, it will do that every time?

Note: I know undefined behavior is very, very bad, but when I pointed out UB in code written by somebody in this situation, they asked this, and I didn't have anything better to say than, if you ever have to upgrade or port, all the UB will be very expensive to fix.

It seems there are different categories of Behavior:

1. Defined - This is behavior documented to work by the standards
2. Supported - This is behavior documented to be supported a.k.a implementation defined
3. Extensions - This is a documented addition, support for low level bit operations like popcount, branch hints, fall into this category
4. Constant - While not documented, these are behaviors that will likely be consistent on a given platform things like endianness, sizeof int while not portable are likely to not change
5. Reasonable - generally safe and usually legacy, casting from unsigned to signed, using the low bit of a pointer as temp space
6. Dangerous - reading uninitialized or unallocated memory, returning a temp variable, using memcopy on a non pod class

It would seem that Constant might be invariant within a patch version on one platform. The line between Reasonable and Dangerous seems to be moving more and more behavior towards Dangerous as compilers become more aggressive in their optimizations

OS changes, innocuous system changes (different hardware version!), or compiler changes can all cause previously "working" UB to not work.

But it is worse than that.

Sometimes a change to an unrelated compilation unit, or far away code in the same compilation unit, can cause previously "working" UB to not work; as an example, two inline functions or methods with different definitions but the same signature. One is silently discarded during linking; and completely innocuous code changes can change which one is discarded.

The code that is working in one context can suddenly stop working in the same compiler, OS and hardware when you use it in a different context. An example of this is violating strong aliasing; the compiled code might work when called at spot A, but when inlined (possibly at link-time!) the code can change meaning.

Your code, if part of a larger project, could conditionally call some 3rd party code (say, a shell extension that previews an image type in a file open dialog) that changes the state of some flags (floating point precision, locale, integer overflow flags, division by zero behavior, etc). Your code, which worked fine before, now exhibits completely different behavior.

Next, many kinds of undefined behavior are inherently non-deterministic. Accessing the contents of a pointer after it is freed (even writing to it) might be safe 99/100, but 1/100 the page was swapped out, or something else was written there before you got to it. Now you have memory corruption. It passes all your tests, but you lacked complete knowledge of what can go wrong.

By using undefined behavior, you commit yourself to a complete understanding of the C++ standard, everything your compiler can do in that situation, and every way the runtime environment can react. You have to audit the produced assembly, not the C++ source, possibly for the entire program, every time you build it! You also commit everyone who reads that code, or who modifies that code, to that level of knowledge.

It is sometimes still worth it.

Fastest Possible Delegates uses UB and knowledge about calling conventions to be a really fast non-owning std::function-like type.

Impossibly Fast Delegates competes. It is faster in some situations, slower in others, and is compliant with the C++ standard.

Using the UB might be worth it, for the performance boost. It is rare that you gain something other than performance (speed or memory usage) from such UB hackery.

Another example I've seen is when we had to register a callback with a poor C API that just took a function pointer. We'd create a function (compiled without optimization), copy it to another page, modify a pointer constant within that function, then mark that page as executable, allowing us to secretly pass a pointer along with the function pointer to the callback.

An alternative implementation would be to have some fixed size set of functions (10? 100? 1000? 1 million?) all of which look up a std::function in a global array and invoke it. This would put a limit on how many such callbacks we install at any one time, but practically was sufficient.

No, that's not safe. First of all, you will have to fix everything, not only the compiler version. I do not have particular examples, but I guess that a different (upgraded) OS, or even an upgraded processor might change UB results.

Moreover, even having a different data input to your program can change UB behavior. For example, an out-of-bound array access (at least without optimizations) usually depend on whatever is in the memory after the array. UPD: see a great answer by Yakk for more discussion on this.

And a bigger problem is optimization and other compiler flags. UB may manifest itself in a different ways depending on optimization flags, and it's quite difficult to imagine somebody to use always the same optimization flags (at least you'll use different flags for debug and release).

UPD: just noticed that you did never mention fixing a compiler version, you only mentioned fixing a compiler itself. Then everything is even more unsafe: new compiler versions might definitely change UB behavior. From this series of blog posts:

> The important and scary thing to realize is that just about any > optimization based on undefined behavior can start being triggered on > buggy code at any time in the future. Inlining, loop unrolling, memory > promotion and other optimizations will keep getting better, and a > significant part of their reason for existing is to expose secondary > optimizations like the ones above.

This is basically a question about a specific C++ implementation. "Can I assume that a specific behavior, undefined by the standard, will continue to be handled by ($CXX) on platform XYZ in the same way under circumstances UVW?"

I think you either should clarify by saying exactly what compiler and platform you are working with, and then consult their documentation to see if they make any guarantees, otherwise the question is fundamentally unanswerable.

The whole point of undefined behavior is that the C++ standard doesn't specify what happens, so if you are looking for some kind of guarantee from the standard that it's "ok" you aren't going to find it. If you are asking whether the "community at large" considers it safe, that's primarily opinion based.

> Once the UB has manifested for that architecture and that compiler and you have tested, can't you assume that from then on whatever the compiler did with the UB the first time, it will do that every time?

Only if the compiler makers guarantee that you can do this, otherwise, no, it's wishful thinking.

---

Let me try to answer again in a slightly different way.

As we all know, in normal software engineering, and engineering at large, programmers / engineers are taught to do things according to a standard, the compiler writers / parts manufacturers produce parts / tools that meet a standard, and at the end you produce something where "under the assumptions of the standards, my engineering work shows that this product will work", and then you test it and ship it.

Suppose you had a crazy uncle jimbo and one day, he got all his tools out and a whole bunch of two by fours, and worked for weeks and made a makeshift roller coaster in your backyard. And then you run it, and sure enough it doesn't crash. And you even run it ten times, and it doesn't crash. Now jimbo is not an engineer, so this is not made according to standards. But if it didn't crash after even ten times, that means it's safe and you can start charging admission to the public, right?

To a large extent what's safe and what isn't is a sociological question. But if you want to just make it a simple question of "when can I reasonably assume that no one would get hurt by me charging admission, when I can't really assume anything about the product", this is how I would do it. Suppose I estimate that, if I start charging admission to the public, I'll run it for X years, and in that time, maybe 100,000 people will ride it. If it's basically a biased coin flip whether it breaks or not, then what I would want to see is something like, "this device has been run a million times with crash dummies, and it never crashed or showed hints of breaking." Then I could quite reasonably believe that if I start charging admission to the public, the odds that anyone will ever get hurt are quite low, even though there are no rigorous engineering standards involved. That would just be based on a general knowledge of statistics and mechanics.

In relation to your question, I would say, if you are shipping code with undefined behavior, which no one, either the standard, the compiler maker, or anyone else will support, that's basically "crazy uncle jimbo" engineering, and it's only "okay" if you do vastly increased amounts of testing to verify that it meets your needs, based on a general knowledge of statistics and computers.

What you are referring to is more likely implementation defined and not undefined behavior. The former is when the standard doesn't tell you what will happen but it should work the same if you are using the same compiler and the same platform. An example for this is assuming that an int is 4 bytes long. UB is something more serious. There the standard doesn't say anything. It is possible that for a given compiler and platform it works, but it is also possible that it works only in some of the cases.

An example is using uninitialized values. If you use an uninitialized bool in an if, you may get true or false, and it may happen that it is always what you want, but the code will break in several surprising ways.

Another example is dereferencing a null pointer. While it will probably result in a segfault in all cases, but the standard doesn't require the program to even produce the same results every time a program is run.

In summary, if you are doing something that is implementation defined, then you are safe if you are only developing to one platform and you tested that it works. If you are doing something that is undefined behavior, then you are probably not safe in any case. There may be that it works but nothing guarantees it.

Think about it a different way.

Undefined behavior is ALWAYS bad, and should never be used, because you never know what you will get.

However, you can temper that with

Behavior can be defined by parties other than just the language specification

Thus you should never rely on UB, ever, but you can find alternate sources which state that a certain behavior is DEFINED behavior for your compiler in your circumstances.

Yakk gave great examples regarding the fast delegate classes. In those cases, the author explicitly claims that they are engaging in undefined behavior, according to the spec. However, they then go to explain a business reason why the behavior is better defined than that. For example, they declare that the memory layout of a member function pointer is unlikely to change in Visual Studio because there would be rampant business costs due to incompatibilities which are distasteful to Microsoft. Thus they declare that the behavior is "de facto defined behavior."

Similar behavior can be seen in the typical linux implementation of pthreads (to be compiled by gcc). There are cases where they make assumptions about what optimizations a compiler is allowed to invoke in multithreaded scenarios. Those assumptions are stated plainly in comments in the sourcecode. How is this "de facto defined behavior?" Well, pthreads and gcc go kind of hand in hand. It would be considered unacceptable to add an optimization to gcc which broke pthreads, so nobody will ever do it.

However, you cannot make the same assumption. You may say "pthreads does it, so I should be able to as well." Then, someone makes an optimization, and updates gcc to work with it (perhaps using __sync calls instead of relying on volatile). Now pthreads keeps functioning... but your code doesn't anymore.

Also consider the case of MySQL (or was it Postgre?) where they found a buffer overflow error. The overflow had actually been caught in the code, but it did so using undefined behavior, so the latest gcc started optimizing the entire check out.

So, in all, look for an alternate source of defining the behavior, rather than using it while it is undefined. It is totally legit to find a reason why you know 1.0/0.0 equals NaN, rather than causing a floating point trap to occur. But never use that assumption without first proving that it is a valid definition of behavior for you and your compiler.

And please oh please oh please remember that we upgrade compilers every now and then.

Historically, C compilers have generally tended to act in somewhat-predictable fashion even when not required to do so by the Standard. On most platforms, for example, a comparison between a null pointer and a pointer to a dead object will simply report that they are not equal (useful if code wishes to safely assert that the pointer is null and trap if it isn't). The Standard does not require compilers to do these things, but historically compilers which could do them easily have done so.

Unfortunately, some compiler writers have gotten the idea that if such a comparison could not be reached while the pointer was validly non-null, the compiler should omit the assertion code. Worse, if it can also determine that certain input would cause the code to be reached with an invalid non-null pointer, it should assume that such input will never be received, and omit all code which would handle such input.

Hopefully such compiler behavior will turn out to be a short-lived fad. Supposedly, it's driven by a desire to "optimize" code, but for most applications robustness is more important than speed, and having compilers mess with code that would have limited the damage caused by errant inputs or errand program behavior is a recipe for disaster.

Until then, however, one must be very careful when using compilers to read the documentation carefully, since there's no guarantee that a compiler writer won't have decided that it was less important to support useful behaviors which, though widely supported, aren't mandated by the Standard (such as being able to safely check whether two arbitrary objects overlap), than to exploit every opportunity to eliminate code which the Standard doesn't require it to execute.

Undefined behavior can be altered by things such as the ambient temperature, which causes rotating hard disk latencies to change, which causes thread scheduling to change, which in turn changes the contents of the random garbage that's getting evaluated.

In short, not safe unless the compiler or the OS specifies the behavior (since the language standard didn't).

There is a fundamental problem with undefined behavior of any kind: It is diagnosed by sanitizers and optimizers. A compiler can silently change behavior corresponding to those from one version to another (e.g. by expanding its repertoire), and suddenly you'll have some untraceable error in your program. This should be avoided.

There is undefined behavior that is made "defined" by your particular implementation, though. A left shift by a negative amount of bits can be defined by your machine, and it would be safe to use it there, as breaking changes of documented features occur quite rarely. One more common example is strict aliasing: GCC can disable this restriction with -fno-strict-aliasing.

While I agree with the answers that say that it's not safe even if you don't target multiple platforms, every rule can have exceptions.

I would like to present two examples where I'm confident that allowing undefined / implementation-defined behavior was the right choice.

1. A single-shot program. It's not a program which is intended to be used by anyone, but it's a small and quickly written program created to calculate or generate something now. In such a case a "quick and dirty" solution can be the right choice, for example, if I know the endianness of my system and I don't want to bother with writing a code which works with the other endianness. For example, I only needed it to perform a mathematical proof to know if I'll be able to use a specific formula in my other, user-oriented program or not.

2. Very small embedded devices. The cheapest microcontrollers have memory measured in a few hundred bytes. If you develop a small toy with blinking LEDs or a musical postcard, etc, every penny counts, because it will be produced in the millions with a very low profit per unit. Neither the processor nor the code ever changes, and if you have to use a different processor for the next generation of your product, you will probably have to rewrite your code anyway. A good example of an undefined behavior in this case is that there are microcontrollers which guarantee a value of zero (or 255) for every memory location at power-up. In this case you can skip the initialization of your variables. If your microcontroller has only 256 bytes of memory, this can make a difference between a program which fits into the memory and a code which doesn't.

Anyone who disagrees with point 2, please imagine what would happen if you told something like this to your boss:

"I know the hardware costs only $ 0.40 and we plan selling it for $ 0.50. However, the program with 40 lines of code I've written for it only works for this very specific type of processor, so if in the distant future we ever change to a different processor, the code will not be usable and I'll have to throw it out and write a new one. A standard-conforming program which works for every type of processor will not fit into our $ 0.40 processor. Therefore I request to use a processor which costs $ 0.60, because I refuse to write a program which is not portable."

"Software that doesn't change, isn't being used."

If you are doing something unusual with pointers, there's probably a way to use casts to define what you want. Because of their nature, they will not be "whatever the compiler did with the UB the first time". For example, when you refer to memory pointed at by an uninitialize pointer, you get a random address that is different every time you run the program.

Undefined behavior generally means you are doing something tricky, and you would be better off doing the task another way. For instance, this is undefined:

printf("%d %d", ++i, ++i);

It's hard to know what the intent would even be here, and should be re-thought.

Changing the code without breaking it requires reading and understanding the current code. Relying on undefined behavior hurts readability: If I can't look it up, how am I supposed to know what the code does?

While portability of the program might not be an issue, portability of the programmers might be. If you need to hire someone to maintain the program, you'll want to be able to look simply for a '<language x> developer with experience in <application domain>' that fits well into your team rather than having to find a capable '<language x> developer with experience in <application domain> knowing (or willing to learn) all the undefined behavior intrinsics of version x.y.z on platform foo when used in combination with bar while having baz on the furbleblawup'.

>Nothing is changing but the code, and the UB is not implementation-defined.

Changing the code is sufficient to trigger different behavior from the optimizer with respect to undefined behavior and so code that may have worked can easily break due to seemingly minor changes that expose more optimization opportunities. For example a change that allows a function to be inlined, this is covered well in What Every C Programmer Should Know About Undefined Behavior #2/3 which says:

>While this is intentionally a simple and contrived example, this sort of thing happens all the time with inlining: inlining a function often exposes a number of secondary optimization opportunities. This means that if the optimizer decides to inline a function, a variety of local optimizations can kick in, which change the behavior of the code. This is both perfectly valid according to the standard, and important for performance in practice.

Compiler vendors have become very aggressive with optimizations around undefined behavior and upgrades can expose previously unexploited code:

>The important and scary thing to realize is that just about any optimization based on undefined behavior can start being triggered on buggy code at any time in the future. Inlining, loop unrolling, memory promotion and other optimizations will keep getting better, and a significant part of their reason for existing is to expose secondary optimizations like the ones above.