• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Servant of the Lord

Casting between different sized integer references

11 posts in this topic

If you cast references between two integers of different sizes, say using reinterpret_cast, you start sinking into dangerous undefined behavior, right?

uint16_t originalInt = 5000;

uint8_t &smallerThanOriginalRef = reinterpret_cast<uint8_t&>(originalInt);
uint32_t &largerThanOriginalRef = reinterpret_cast<uint32_t&>(originalInt);

Would assigning to 'smallerThanOriginalRef' only set the first byte of 'originalInt'?

So this:

smallerThanOriginalRef = 123;

Wouldn't first clear the higher bytes of 'originalInt', and so 'originalInt' wouldn't be guaranteed to be 123, right?

 

And assigning to 'largerThanOriginalRef' would accidentally write on bytes outside of 'originalInt', which might write on memory that is used by other variables?

 

(in practice, those ints might be internally represented as a 32 bit or 64 bit integer anyway... but that's not guaranteed by the standard)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are sizing it up use the & to clean out the upper bits. Also you don't have to use reinterpret_cast, takes longer to type out than simply using v=(uint32_t)variable, which will do the exact same thing.

 

uint32_t largerThanOriginalRef = ((uint32_t)originalInt)&0xFFFF;

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you don't have to use reinterpret_cast, takes longer to type out than simply using v=(uint32_t)variable, which will do the exact same thing.

 

My original use had to do with passing a uint32_t to a function wanting a uint8_t&, but then I realized the all problems involved with that. laugh.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would lose a huge amount of precision converting it to an eight bit value. If you really needed it 8 bit then extract it out in the routine itself, c++ normally passes everything as 32 bits anyways. Anything larger (such as strings) I always pass as a pointer reference using &... The only case I avoid doing this is for logging where I might send in a full string such as Log("Feature xxxx failed to work"); otherwise it is always a variable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, GCC 4.8 does not even warn about that code of yours although it's arguably in violation of the standard which says "A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function" (8.3.2) with "valid" being the important bit.

 

Since originalInt is not of a type that the new reference type can accomodate, it isn't a valid object (well, originalInt itself is a valid object, but result of the cast which the reference is initialized with isn't). You would think that this is obvious to the compiler, too. But maybe it's because of the cast operation. Probably the compiler assumes "programmer said cast, so he knows what he's doing".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be the same as if pointers were used.

uint16_t originalInt = 5000;
uint8_t &smallerThanOriginalRef = reinterpret_cast<uint8_t&>(originalInt);
uint32_t &largerThanOriginalRef = reinterpret_cast<uint32_t&>(originalInt);
 
smallerThanOriginalRef = 123;
largerThanOriginalRef = 1000000;
Should behave the same as:

uint16_t originalInt = 5000;
uint8_t *smallerThanOriginalPtr = reinterpret_cast<uint8_t*>(&originalInt);
uint32_t *largerThanOriginalPtr = reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(&originalInt);
 
*smallerThanOriginalPtr = 123;
*largerThanOriginalPtr = 1000000;
The smaller write would right to the beginning bits of the original int, and whether that's the low or high bits depends on endienness. The larger would write beyond the memory of the original int, possibly clobbering another stack variable.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unspecified behavior not undefined behavior. 

 

Undefined behavior is always wrong code.

Unspecified behavior means it is defined by the implementation.

Edited by Shannon Barber
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, GCC 4.8 does not even warn about that code of yours although it's arguably in violation of the standard which says "A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function" (8.3.2) with "valid" being the important bit.

 

Since originalInt is not of a type that the new reference type can accomodate, it isn't a valid object (well, originalInt itself is a valid object, but result of the cast which the reference is initialized with isn't). You would think that this is obvious to the compiler, too. But maybe it's because of the cast operation. Probably the compiler assumes "programmer said cast, so he knows what he's doing".

He cast a POD to a POD so it's valid as long memory (size) constraints are honored and they are since it's a smaller.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unspecified behavior not undefined behavior.

You're probably looking at the section of the standard regarding reinterpret_cast which states that the pointer value of the reinterpret_cast is unspecified. However, you're still modifying an object through an lvalue that is different than its dynamic type (and doesn't differ only in cv-qualifiers or signed/unsigned, isn't part of an aggregate, etc.), which is undefined behavior. See section 3.10 in the standard (all versions). (With the exception that uint8_t is probably a typedef for unsigned char, and modifying an object through an lvalue of char or unsigned char isn't undefined behavior. The largerThanOriginal is definitely undefined since there's no way for it to be a typedef for char or unsigned char and still have the example compile.)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0