Accessing an array out of bounds gives no error, why?

by

Welcome to every C/C++ programmer’s bestest friend: Undefined Behavior.

There is a lot that is not specified by the language standard, for a variety of reasons. This is one of them.

In general, whenever you encounter undefined behavior, anything might happen. The application may crash, it may freeze, it may eject your CD-ROM drive or make demons come out of your nose. It may format your harddrive or email all your porn to your grandmother.

It may even, if you are really unlucky, appear to work correctly.

The language simply says what should happen if you access the elements within the bounds of an array. It is left undefined what happens if you go out of bounds. It might seem to work today, on your compiler, but it is not legal C or C++, and there is no guarantee that it’ll still work the next time you run the program. Or that it hasn’t overwritten essential data even now, and you just haven’t encountered the problems, that it is going to cause — yet.

As for why there is no bounds checking, there are a couple aspects to the answer:

  • An array is a leftover from C. C arrays are about as primitive as you can get. Just a sequence of elements with contiguous addresses. There is no bounds checking because it is simply exposing raw memory. Implementing a robust bounds-checking mechanism would have been almost impossible in C.
  • In C++, bounds-checking is possible on class types. But an array is still the plain old C-compatible one. It is not a class. Further, C++ is also built on another rule which makes bounds-checking non-ideal. The C++ guiding principle is “you don’t pay for what you don’t use”. If your code is correct, you don’t need bounds-checking, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay for the overhead of runtime bounds-checking.
  • So C++ offers the std::vector class template, which allows both. operator[] is designed to be efficient. The language standard does not require that it performs bounds checking (although it does not forbid it either). A vector also has the at() member function which is guaranteed to perform bounds-checking. So in C++, you get the best of both worlds if you use a vector. You get array-like performance without bounds-checking, and you get the ability to use bounds-checked access when you want it.

More Related Contents:

  1. how to change to c code while using for loop and array
  2. What is the difference between '.' and '->' when used in array? [closed]
  3. Call an array from within an array of structs in c++
  4. Determine if int is not 0 with no if statements
  5. Array of vectors
  6. Segmentation fault on large array sizes
  7. Why do C and C++ compilers allow array lengths in function signatures when they’re never enforced?
  8. determine size of array if passed to function
  9. Why do C and C++ support memberwise assignment of arrays within structs, but not generally?
  10. C++ pass an array by reference
  11. How does this “size of array” template function work? [duplicate]
  12. Why does a large local array crash my program, but a global one doesn’t? [duplicate]
  13. Are vectors passed to functions by value or by reference in C++
  14. How to map the indexes of a matrix to a 1-dimensional array (C++)?
  15. Declare large array on Stack
  16. How does the range-based for work for plain arrays?
  17. Pointer-to-pointer dynamic two-dimensional array
  18. Why does gcc allow char array initialization with string literal larger than array?
  19. How do I declare an array of objects whose class has no default constructor?
  20. when do we need to pass the size of array as a parameter
  21. Variable length arrays (VLA) in C and C++
  22. Convert Eigen Matrix to C array
  23. Converting between C++ std::vector and C array without copying
  24. array decay to pointer and overload resolution
  25. Interfacing C++11 array with Cython
  26. Function returning array but main showing garbage [duplicate]
  27. Parse string containing numbers into integer array
  28. difference between pointer to an array and pointer to the first element of an array
  29. Array of size defined by not constant variable
  30. int *array = new int[n]; what is this function actually doing?

Leave a Comment