4 ms·

Doing bitwise operations directly on raw pointers is a fast track to Undefined Behavior in standard C/C++. Emacs gets away with it largely due to its age, its h

Doing bitwise operations directly on raw pointers is a fast track to Undefined Behavior in standard C/C++. Emacs gets away with it largely due to its age, its heavy reliance on specific GCC behaviors/extensions, and how its build system configures compiler optimizations. In modern C++, the technically "correct" and safe way to spell this trick is exactly as you suggested: using uintptr_t (or intptr_t).

shadowgovt 7mo ago
Is there a similar solution to doing this in Rust? I suppose inside `unsafe` you can do basically anything.
- thecloudlet 7mo ago
  Waiting for Rust experts.
- simonask 7mo ago
  Rust is basically in the same place as C++, i.e. provenance rules are currently ad-hoc/conventional, meaning that pointer tagging is a grey area.
  - tialaramex 7mo ago
    Nope. Rust stabilized strict provenance over a year ago. Some details about aliasing aren't tied down, but so long as you can obey the strict provenance rules you're golden today in Rust to hide flags in pointers etc. https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/01/09/Rust-1.84.0/#strict-provenance-apis https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/01/09/Rust-1.84.0/#strict-pr...
    - uecker 7mo ago
      But LLVM's optimizations aren't sound and this affects Rust too.
      - simonask 7mo ago
        Huh? Which optimizations?
        tialaramex 7mo ago
        LLVM is quite sure that, for example, two pointers to different objects are different. That's true even if in fact the objects both lived in the exact same spot on the stack (but at different times). That's... well it's not what Rust wants but it's not necessarily an unacceptable outcome and Rust could just ask for their addresses and compare those... Except it turns out if we ask for their addresses, which are the same integer, LLVM remembers it believed the pointers were different and insists those are different too. Until you call its bluff and do arithmetic on them. Then, in some cases, it snaps out of it and remembers that they're identical... This is a compiler bug, but, apparently it's such a tricky bug to fix that I stopped even looking to see whether they'd fixed it after a few years... It affects C, C++, Rust, all of them as a result can be miscompiled by a compiler using LLVM [it's easiest to demonstrate this bug with Rust but it's the same in every language]. But as you've probably noticed, this doesn't have such an enormous impact that anybody stopped using LLVM.
    - simonask 7mo ago
      Oh damn, I missed this, thanks for the correction!
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  Unlike C++ all of Rust's primitive types get the same first class treatment as your user defined types and so the appropriate API is provided as methods on pointer types. For this you want ptr::map_addr which takes a callable (such as your own function for this mapping or a lambda) to fiddle with the pointer. https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.map_addr https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.... Rust's MIRI is able to run code which uses this (a strict provenance API) because although MIRI's pointers are some mysterious internal type, it can track that we mapped them to hide our tags, and then later mapped back from the tagged pointer to recover our "real" pointer and see that's fine. This isn't an unsafe operation. Dereferencing a pointer is unsafe, but twiddling the bits is fine, it just means whoever writes the unsafe dereferencing part of your codebase needs to be very careful about these pointers e.g. making sure the ones you've smuggled a tag in aren't dereferenced 'cos that's Undefined Behaviour. It's clear to me how this works in Rust, it's just unclear still in C++
- trws 7mo ago
  Everything else in the siblings is true, but remember that the language and std types in rust all do this already. Most of the time it’s better to use a native enum or optional/result because they do this in the compiler/lib. It’s only really worth it if you need more than a few types or need precise control of the representation for C interop or something.
  - tialaramex 7mo ago
    I mean, kinda, sorta? Rust's guaranteed niche optimisation means Option<&T> [which might be Some(&T) or just None] is promised to be the same size in memory as &T the reference to a T So that's one tiny use of this sort of idea which is guaranteed unnecessary in Rust, and indeed although it isn't guaranteed the optimiser will typically spot less obvious opportunities so that Option<Option<bool>> which might be None, or Some(None) or Some(Some(true)) or Some(Some(false)) is the same size (one byte) as bool. But hiding stuff in a pointer is applicable in places your Rust compiler won't try to take advantage unless you do something like this. A novel tiny String-like type I saw recently does this, https://crates.io/crates/cold-string https://crates.io/crates/cold-string ColdString is 8 bytes, if your text is 8 or fewer bytes of UTF-8 then you're done, that'll fit, but, if you have more text ColdString allocates on the heap to store not only your text but also its length and so it needs to actually "be" in some sense a raw pointer to that structure, but if the string is shorter that pointer is nonsense, we've hidden our text in the pointer itself. Implementation requires knowing how pointers work, and how UTF-8 encoding works. I actually really like one of the other Rust tiny strings, CompactString but if you have a lot of very small strings (e.g. UK postcodes fit great) then ColdString might be as much as three times smaller than your existing Rust or C++ approach and it's really hard to beat that for such use cases. Edited: To remove suggestion ColdString has a distinct storage capacity, this isn't intended as a conventional string buffer, it can't grow after creation
  - VorpalWay 7mo ago
    To expand on the sibling answer: sort of! Rust will do niche optimisation, but for references and NonNull pointers this is limited to "the value 0 is invalid and can thus be used as a niche". But Rust does not (currently) take advantage of alignment niches in pointers. Nor does it use high bit on architectures where you know your whole theoretical address space isn't actually in use. Is doing that manually worth it? Usually not, but for some core types (classical example is strings) or in language runtimes it can be. Would it be awesome if this could be done automatically? Absolutely, but I understand it is a large change, and the plan is to later build upon the pattern types that are currently work in progress (and would allow you to specify custom ranged integer typed).
trws 7mo ago
There’s a paper in flight to add a stdlib type to handle pointer tagging as well while preserving pointer provenance and so-forth. It’s currently best to use the intptr types, but the goal is to make it so that an implementation can provide specializations based on what bits of a pointer are insignificant, or even ignored, on a given target without user code having to be specialized. Not sure where it has landed since discussion in SG1 but seemed like a good idea.
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  Given you aren't sure since SG1 this might be useless but... do you have a paper number? Or, more likely, know an author's name ?
  - legobmw99 7mo ago
    Seems like its p3125r0
    - tialaramex 7mo ago
      Thanks! https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p3125r4.html https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p31... (is the current version of that paper, the tracking ticket insisted there's a P3125R5 and that LEWG had seen it in 2025, but it isn't listed in a mailing so it might be a mirage) You know it's a Hana paper because it wants this to be allowed at compile time (C++ constrexpr) but joking aside this seems like a nice approach for C++ which stays agnostic about future implementation details.
  - trws 7mo ago
    It’s Hana Dusikova’s paper IIRC.
VorpalWay 7mo ago
Do (u)intptr_t preserve provenance? Or does this count as exposed provenance when you convert back and forth? Maybe that is not the correct C++ terminology, I'm more familiar with how provenance works in Rust, where large parts of it got stabilised a little over a year ago. (What was stabilised was "strict provenance", which is a set of rules that if you abide them will definitely be correct, but it is possible the rules might be loosened in the future to be more lenient.) https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/index.html#provenance https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/index.html#provenance
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  Well, C++ does not have any promises about how Pointer Provenance works, so AFAIK the answer is "mu" meaning that's a bad question, don't ask that. But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates As that name suggests, in this model provenance is not transmitted via integers. Every 123456 is always just the integer 123456 and there aren't magic 123456 values which are different and transmit some form of provenance from a pointer to some value which happened perhaps to be stored at address 123456 in memory. However, PNVI-ae-udi has Exposure, which means if we exposed the pointer in an approved way then the associated provenance is somehow magically "out there" in the ether, as a result if we have exposed this pointer then just having that integer 123456 works fine because we combined that integer 123456 with that provenance from the ether and make a working pointer. User disambiguation means that the compiler has to give you "benefit of the doubt" e.g. if you could mean to make a pointer to that Doodad which no longer exists as of a minute ago or to this other Doodad which does exist, well, benefit of the doubt means it was the latter and so your pointer is valid even though the addresses of both Doodads were the same.
  - jcranmer 7mo ago
    > But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates There's a competing proposal in C++ land to add provenance via angelic nondeterminism: if there's some provenance that makes the code non-UB, then use that provenance. (As you might imagine, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, but WG21 seems to love it a lot more than I do.)

shadowgovt 7mo ago

Is there a similar solution to doing this in Rust? I suppose inside `unsafe` you can do basically anything.

thecloudlet 7mo ago
Waiting for Rust experts.
simonask 7mo ago
Rust is basically in the same place as C++, i.e. provenance rules are currently ad-hoc/conventional, meaning that pointer tagging is a grey area.
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  Nope. Rust stabilized strict provenance over a year ago. Some details about aliasing aren't tied down, but so long as you can obey the strict provenance rules you're golden today in Rust to hide flags in pointers etc. https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/01/09/Rust-1.84.0/#strict-provenance-apis https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/01/09/Rust-1.84.0/#strict-pr...
  - uecker 7mo ago
    But LLVM's optimizations aren't sound and this affects Rust too.
    - simonask 7mo ago
      Huh? Which optimizations?
      - tialaramex 7mo ago
        LLVM is quite sure that, for example, two pointers to different objects are different. That's true even if in fact the objects both lived in the exact same spot on the stack (but at different times). That's... well it's not what Rust wants but it's not necessarily an unacceptable outcome and Rust could just ask for their addresses and compare those... Except it turns out if we ask for their addresses, which are the same integer, LLVM remembers it believed the pointers were different and insists those are different too. Until you call its bluff and do arithmetic on them. Then, in some cases, it snaps out of it and remembers that they're identical... This is a compiler bug, but, apparently it's such a tricky bug to fix that I stopped even looking to see whether they'd fixed it after a few years... It affects C, C++, Rust, all of them as a result can be miscompiled by a compiler using LLVM [it's easiest to demonstrate this bug with Rust but it's the same in every language]. But as you've probably noticed, this doesn't have such an enormous impact that anybody stopped using LLVM.
  - simonask 7mo ago
    Oh damn, I missed this, thanks for the correction!
tialaramex 7mo ago
Unlike C++ all of Rust's primitive types get the same first class treatment as your user defined types and so the appropriate API is provided as methods on pointer types. For this you want ptr::map_addr which takes a callable (such as your own function for this mapping or a lambda) to fiddle with the pointer. https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.map_addr https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.... Rust's MIRI is able to run code which uses this (a strict provenance API) because although MIRI's pointers are some mysterious internal type, it can track that we mapped them to hide our tags, and then later mapped back from the tagged pointer to recover our "real" pointer and see that's fine. This isn't an unsafe operation. Dereferencing a pointer is unsafe, but twiddling the bits is fine, it just means whoever writes the unsafe dereferencing part of your codebase needs to be very careful about these pointers e.g. making sure the ones you've smuggled a tag in aren't dereferenced 'cos that's Undefined Behaviour. It's clear to me how this works in Rust, it's just unclear still in C++
trws 7mo ago
Everything else in the siblings is true, but remember that the language and std types in rust all do this already. Most of the time it’s better to use a native enum or optional/result because they do this in the compiler/lib. It’s only really worth it if you need more than a few types or need precise control of the representation for C interop or something.
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  I mean, kinda, sorta? Rust's guaranteed niche optimisation means Option<&T> [which might be Some(&T) or just None] is promised to be the same size in memory as &T the reference to a T So that's one tiny use of this sort of idea which is guaranteed unnecessary in Rust, and indeed although it isn't guaranteed the optimiser will typically spot less obvious opportunities so that Option<Option<bool>> which might be None, or Some(None) or Some(Some(true)) or Some(Some(false)) is the same size (one byte) as bool. But hiding stuff in a pointer is applicable in places your Rust compiler won't try to take advantage unless you do something like this. A novel tiny String-like type I saw recently does this, https://crates.io/crates/cold-string https://crates.io/crates/cold-string ColdString is 8 bytes, if your text is 8 or fewer bytes of UTF-8 then you're done, that'll fit, but, if you have more text ColdString allocates on the heap to store not only your text but also its length and so it needs to actually "be" in some sense a raw pointer to that structure, but if the string is shorter that pointer is nonsense, we've hidden our text in the pointer itself. Implementation requires knowing how pointers work, and how UTF-8 encoding works. I actually really like one of the other Rust tiny strings, CompactString but if you have a lot of very small strings (e.g. UK postcodes fit great) then ColdString might be as much as three times smaller than your existing Rust or C++ approach and it's really hard to beat that for such use cases. Edited: To remove suggestion ColdString has a distinct storage capacity, this isn't intended as a conventional string buffer, it can't grow after creation
- VorpalWay 7mo ago
  To expand on the sibling answer: sort of! Rust will do niche optimisation, but for references and NonNull pointers this is limited to "the value 0 is invalid and can thus be used as a niche". But Rust does not (currently) take advantage of alignment niches in pointers. Nor does it use high bit on architectures where you know your whole theoretical address space isn't actually in use. Is doing that manually worth it? Usually not, but for some core types (classical example is strings) or in language runtimes it can be. Would it be awesome if this could be done automatically? Absolutely, but I understand it is a large change, and the plan is to later build upon the pattern types that are currently work in progress (and would allow you to specify custom ranged integer typed).

trws 7mo ago

There’s a paper in flight to add a stdlib type to handle pointer tagging as well while preserving pointer provenance and so-forth. It’s currently best to use the intptr types, but the goal is to make it so that an implementation can provide specializations based on what bits of a pointer are insignificant, or even ignored, on a given target without user code having to be specialized. Not sure where it has landed since discussion in SG1 but seemed like a good idea.

tialaramex 7mo ago
Given you aren't sure since SG1 this might be useless but... do you have a paper number? Or, more likely, know an author's name ?
- legobmw99 7mo ago
  Seems like its p3125r0
  - tialaramex 7mo ago
    Thanks! https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p3125r4.html https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p31... (is the current version of that paper, the tracking ticket insisted there's a P3125R5 and that LEWG had seen it in 2025, but it isn't listed in a mailing so it might be a mirage) You know it's a Hana paper because it wants this to be allowed at compile time (C++ constrexpr) but joking aside this seems like a nice approach for C++ which stays agnostic about future implementation details.
- trws 7mo ago
  It’s Hana Dusikova’s paper IIRC.

VorpalWay 7mo ago

Do (u)intptr_t preserve provenance? Or does this count as exposed provenance when you convert back and forth? Maybe that is not the correct C++ terminology, I'm more familiar with how provenance works in Rust, where large parts of it got stabilised a little over a year ago. (What was stabilised was "strict provenance", which is a set of rules that if you abide them will definitely be correct, but it is possible the rules might be loosened in the future to be more lenient.) https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/index.html#provenance https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/index.html#provenance

tialaramex 7mo ago
Well, C++ does not have any promises about how Pointer Provenance works, so AFAIK the answer is "mu" meaning that's a bad question, don't ask that. But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates As that name suggests, in this model provenance is not transmitted via integers. Every 123456 is always just the integer 123456 and there aren't magic 123456 values which are different and transmit some form of provenance from a pointer to some value which happened perhaps to be stored at address 123456 in memory. However, PNVI-ae-udi has Exposure, which means if we exposed the pointer in an approved way then the associated provenance is somehow magically "out there" in the ether, as a result if we have exposed this pointer then just having that integer 123456 works fine because we combined that integer 123456 with that provenance from the ether and make a working pointer. User disambiguation means that the compiler has to give you "benefit of the doubt" e.g. if you could mean to make a pointer to that Doodad which no longer exists as of a minute ago or to this other Doodad which does exist, well, benefit of the doubt means it was the latter and so your pointer is valid even though the addresses of both Doodads were the same.
- jcranmer 7mo ago
  > But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates There's a competing proposal in C++ land to add provenance via angelic nondeterminism: if there's some provenance that makes the code non-UB, then use that provenance. (As you might imagine, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, but WG21 seems to love it a lot more than I do.)