Evaluation of an expression may produce side effects. At specific points during execution, known as sequence points, all side effects of previous evaluations are complete, and no side effects of subsequent evaluations have yet taken place. Do not depend on the order of evaluation for side effects unless there is an intervening sequence point.
The C Standard, 6.5, paragraph 2 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011], states
If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined. If there are multiple allowable orderings of the subexpressions of an expression, the behavior is undefined if such an unsequenced side effect occurs in any of the orderings.
This requirement must be met for each allowable ordering of the subexpressions of a full expression; otherwise, the behavior is undefined. (See undefined behavior 35.)
The following sequence points are defined in the C Standard, Annex C [ISO/IEC 9899:2011]:
&&
||
,
?:
operator and whichever of the second and third operands is evaluatedif
or switch
)while
or do
statementfor
statementreturn
statementFurthermore, Section 6.5.16, paragraph 3 says (regarding assignment operations):
The side effect of updating the stored value of the left operand is sequenced after the value computations of the left and right operands.
This rule means that statements such as
i = i + 1; a[i] = i; |
have defined behavior, and statements such as the following do not:
/* i is modified twice between sequence points */ i = ++i + 1; /* i is read other than to determine the value to be stored */ a[i++] = i; |
Not all instances of a comma in C code denote a usage of the comma operator. For example, the comma between arguments in a function call is not a sequence point. However, according to the C Standard, 6.5.2.2, paragraph 10 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011]
Every evaluation in the calling function (including other function calls) that is not otherwise specifically sequenced before or after the execution of the body of the called function is indeterminately sequenced with respect to the execution of the called function.
This rule means that the order of evaluation for function call arguments is unspecified and can happen in any order.
Programs cannot safely rely on the order of evaluation of operands between sequence points. In this noncompliant code example, i
is evaluated twice without an intervening sequence point, so the behavior of the expression is undefined:
#include <stdio.h> void func(int i, int *b) { int a = i + b[++i]; printf("%d, %d", a, i); } |
These examples are independent of the order of evaluation of the operands and can be interpreted in only one way:
#include <stdio.h> void func(int i, int *b) { int a; ++i; a = i + b[i]; printf("%d, %d", a, i); } |
Alternatively:
#include <stdio.h> void func(int i, int *b) { int a = i + b[i + 1]; ++i; printf("%d, %d", a, i); } |
The call to func()
in this noncompliant code example has undefined behavior because there is no sequence point between the argument expressions:
extern void func(int i, int j); void f(int i) { func(i++, i); } |
The first (left) argument expression reads the value of i
(to determine the value to be stored) and then modifies i
. The second (right) argument expression reads the value of i
between the same pair of sequence points as the first argument, but not to determine the value to be stored in i
. This additional attempt to read the value of i
has undefined behavior.
This compliant solution is appropriate when the programmer intends for both arguments to func()
to be equivalent:
extern void func(int i, int j); void f(int i) { i++; func(i, i); } |
This compliant solution is appropriate when the programmer intends for the second argument to be 1 greater than the first:
extern void func(int i, int j); void f(int i) { int j = i++; func(j, i); } |
The order of evaluation for function arguments is unspecified. This noncompliant code example exhibits unspecified behavior but not undefined behavior:
extern void c(int i, int j); int glob; int a(void) { return glob + 10; } int b(void) { glob = 42; return glob; } void func(void) { c(a(), b()); } |
It is unspecified what order a()
and b()
are called in; the only guarantee is that both a()
and b()
will be called before c()
is called. If a()
or b()
rely on shared state when calculating their return value, as they do in this example, the resulting arguments passed to c()
may differ between compilers or architectures.
In this compliant solution, the order of evaluation for a()
and b()
is fixed, and so no unspecified behavior occurs:
extern void c(int i, int j); int glob; int a(void) { return glob + 10; } int b(void) { glob = 42; return glob; } void func(void) { int a_val, b_val; a_val = a(); b_val = b(); c(a_val, b_val); } |
Attempting to modify an object multiple times between sequence points may cause that object to take on an unexpected value, which can lead to unexpected program behavior.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EXP30-C | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Astrée | evaluation-order multiple-volatile-accesses | Fully checked | |
Axivion Bauhaus Suite | CertC-EXP30 | ||
Clang | -Wunsequenced | Detects simple violations of this rule, but does not diagnose unsequenced function call arguments. | |
CodeSonar | LANG.STRUCT.SE.DEC | Side Effects in Expression with Decrement | |
Compass/ROSE | Can detect simple violations of this rule. It needs to examine each expression and make sure that no variable is modified twice in the expression. It also must check that no variable is modified once, then read elsewhere, with the single exception that a variable may appear on both the left and right of an assignment operator | ||
EVALUATION_ORDER | Can detect the specific instance where a statement contains multiple side effects on the same value with an undefined evaluation order because, with different compiler flags or different compilers or platforms, the statement may behave differently | ||
CC2.EXP30 | Fully implemented | ||
GCC | Can detect violations of this rule when the | ||
Helix QAC | C0400, C0401, C0402, C0403, C0404, C0405 | Fully implemented | |
Klocwork | PORTING.VAR.EFFECTS | Fully implemented | |
LDRA tool suite | 35 D, 1 Q, 9 S, 30 S, 134 S | Partially implemented | |
Parasoft C/C++test | CERT_C-EXP30-a | The value of an expression shall be the same under any order of evaluation that the standard permits | |
PC-lint Plus | 564 | Partially supported | |
Polyspace Bug Finder | CERT C: Rule EXP30-C | Checks for situations when expression value depends on order of evaluation or of side effects (rule partially covered) | |
PVS-Studio | V532, V567 | ||
RuleChecker | evaluation-order multiple-volatile-accesses | Fully checked | |
Splint | |||
SonarQube C/C++ Plugin | IncAndDecMixedWithOtherOperators | ||
TrustInSoft Analyzer | separated | Exhaustively verified (see one compliant and one non-compliant example). |
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Key here (explains table format and definitions)
Taxonomy | Taxonomy item | Relationship |
---|---|---|
CERT C | EXP50-CPP. Do not depend on the order of evaluation for side effects | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java | EXP05-J. Do not follow a write by a subsequent write or read of the same object within an expression | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
ISO/IEC TR 24772:2013 | Operator Precedence/Order of Evaluation [JCW] | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
ISO/IEC TR 24772:2013 | Side-effects and Order of Evaluation [SAM] | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
MISRA C:2012 | Rule 13.2 (required) | CERT cross-reference in MISRA C:2012 – Addendum 3 |
CWE 2.11 | CWE-758 | 2017-07-07: CERT: Rule subset of CWE |
Key here for mapping notes
Independent( INT34-C, INT36-C, MEM30-C, MSC37-C, FLP32-C, EXP33-C, EXP30-C, ERR34-C, ARR32-C)
CWE-758 = Union( EXP30-C, list) where list =
[ISO/IEC 9899:2011] | 6.5, "Expressions" 6.5.2.2, "Function Calls" Annex C, "Sequence Points" |
[Saks 2007] | |
[Summit 2005] | Questions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.3b, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10a, 3.10b, and 3.11 |