Aliasing struct and array the conformant way - c

Question

In the old days of pre-ISO C, the following code would have surprized nobody:
struct Point {
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
double dist(struct Point *p1, struct Point *p2) {
double d2 = 0;
double *coord1 = &p1.x;
double *coord2 = &p2.x;
int i;
for (i=0; i<3; i++) {
double d = coord2[i] - coord1[i]; // THE problem
d2 += d * d;
return sqrt(d2);
}
At that time, we all knew that alignment of double allowed the compiler to add no padding in struct Point, and we just assumed that pointer arithmetics would do the job.
Unfortunately, this problematic line uses pointer arithmetics (p[i] being by definition *(p + i)) outside of any array which is explicitely not allowed by the standard. Draft n1570 for C11 says in 6.5.6 additive operators §8:
When an expression that has integer type is added to or subtracted from a pointerpointer, the
result has the type of the pointer operand. If the pointer operand points to an element of
an array object, and the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset from
the original element such that the difference of the subscripts of the resulting and original
array elements equals the integer expression...
As nothing is said when we have not two elements of the same array, it is unspecified by the standard and from there Undefined Behaviour (even if all common compilers are glad with it...)
Question:
As this idiom allowed to avoid code replication changing just x with y then z which is quite error prone, what could be a conformant way to browse the elements of a struct as if they were members of the same array?
Disclaimer: It obviously only applies to elements of same type, and padding can be detected with a simple static_assert as shown in that other question of mine, so padding, alignment and mixed types are not my problem here.

Answer 1

C does not define any way to specify that the compiler must not add padding between the named members of struct Point, but many compilers have an extension that would provide for that. If you use such an extension, or if you're just willing to assume that there will be no padding, then you could use a union with an anonymous inner struct, like so:
union Point {
struct {
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
double coords[3];
};
You can then access the coordinates by their individual names or via the coords array:
double dist(union Point *p1, union Point *p2) {
double *coord1 = p1->coords;
double *coord2 = p2->coords;
double d2 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
double d = coord2[i] - coord1[i];
d2 += d * d;
}
return sqrt(d2);
}
int main(void) {
// Note: I don't think the inner braces are necessary, but they silence
// warnings from gcc 4.8.5:
union Point p1 = { { .x = .25, .y = 1, .z = 3 } };
union Point p2;
p2.x = 2.25;
p2.y = -1;
p2.z = 0;
printf("The distance is %lf\n", dist(&p1, &p2));
return 0;
}

Answer 2

This is mainly a complement to JohnBollinger's answer. Anonymous struct members do allow a clean and neat syntax, and C defines a union as a type consisting of a sequence
of members whose storage overlap (6.7.2.1 Structure and union specifiers §6). Accessing a member of a union is then specified in 6.5.2.3 Structure and union members:
3 A postfix expression followed by the . operator and an identifier designates a member of
a structure or union object. The value is that of the named member,95) and is an lvalue if
the first expression is an lvalue.
and the (non normative but informative) note 95 precises:
95) If the member used to read the contents of a union object is not the same as the member last used to
store a value in the object, the appropriate part of the object representation of the value is reinterpreted
as an object representation in the new type as described in 6.2.6 (a process sometimes called ‘‘type
punning’’). This might be a trap representation.
That means that for the current version of the standard the aliasing of a struct by an array with the help of anonymous struct member in a union is explicitly defined behaviour.