I was reading about union in C from K&R, as far as I understood, a single variable in union can hold any one of the several types and if something is stored as one type and extracted as another the result is purely implementation defined.
Now please check this code snippet:
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
union a
{
int i;
char ch[2];
};
union a u;
u.ch[0] = 3;
u.ch[1] = 2;
printf("%d %d %d\n", u.ch[0], u.ch[1], u.i);
return 0;
}
Output:
3 2 515
Here I am assigning values in the u.ch but retrieving from both u.ch and u.i. Is it implementation defined? Or am I doing something really silly?
I know it may seem very beginner to most of other people but I am unable to figure out the reason behind that output.
Thanks.
This is undefined behaviour.
u.iandu.chare located at the same memory address. So, the result of writing into one and reading from the other depends on the compiler, platform, architecture, and sometimes even compiler’s optimization level. Therefore the output foru.imay not always be515.Example
For example
gccon my machine produces two different answers for-O0and-O2.Because my machine has 32-bit little-endian architecture, with
-O0I end up with two least significant bytes initialized to 2 and 3, two most significant bytes are uninitialized. So the union’s memory looks like this:{3, 2, garbage, garbage}Hence I get the output similar to
3 2 -1216937469.With
-O2, I get the output of3 2 515like you do, which makes union memory{3, 2, 0, 0}. What happens is thatgccoptimizes the call toprintfwith actual values, so the assembly output looks like an equivalent of:The value 515 can be obtained as other explained in other answers to this question. In essence it means that when
gccoptimized the call it has chosen zeroes as the random value of a would-be uninitialized union.Writing to one union member and reading from another usually does not make much sense, but sometimes it may be useful for programs compiled with strict aliasing.