4 ms·

> You are allowed to dereference a null pointer Can you cite me something for that? The very first mention of dereferencing in the C++03 standard - ISO/IEC 14

> You are allowed to dereference a null pointer Can you cite me something for that? The very first mention of dereferencing in the C++03 standard - ISO/IEC 14882:2003 1.9 Program exection ¶ 4 (page 5) - would seem to disagree: > Certain other operations are described in this International Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined behavior. ] EDIT: As does 8.3.2 References ¶ 4 (page 136): > [...] [Note: in particular, a null reference cannot exist in a well-defined program, because the only way to create such a reference would be to bind it to the “object” obtained by dereferencing a null pointer, which causes undefined behavior. As described in 9.6, a reference cannot be bound directly to a bit-field. ]

hvdijk 7y ago
The standard doesn't say dereferencing a null pointer is invalid. The fact that it gives it as an example of undefined behaviour is a defect in the standard. In the discussion on core language issue #232, the intent has been explicitly stated: > Notes from the October 2003 meeting: > ... > We agreed that the approach in the standard seems okay: p = 0; *p; is not inherently an error. An lvalue-to-rvalue conversion would give it undefined behavior. http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 WRT your edit: no, that says dereferencing a null pointer and binding a reference to the result produces undefined behaviour. That agrees with what I was saying. "which" refers to the whole of "to bind it to the "object" obtained by dereferencing a null pointer", not just to "dereferencing a null pointer".
- MaulingMonkey 7y ago
  I see! Thanks for the reference.

hvdijk 7y ago

The standard doesn't say dereferencing a null pointer is invalid. The fact that it gives it as an example of undefined behaviour is a defect in the standard. In the discussion on core language issue #232, the intent has been explicitly stated: > Notes from the October 2003 meeting: > ... > We agreed that the approach in the standard seems okay: p = 0; *p; is not inherently an error. An lvalue-to-rvalue conversion would give it undefined behavior. http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 WRT your edit: no, that says dereferencing a null pointer and binding a reference to the result produces undefined behaviour. That agrees with what I was saying. "which" refers to the whole of "to bind it to the "object" obtained by dereferencing a null pointer", not just to "dereferencing a null pointer".

MaulingMonkey 7y ago
I see! Thanks for the reference.