我在一个c++程序中分配值，就像这样:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int array[2];
array[0] = 1;
array[1] = 2;
array[3] = 3;
array[4] = 4;
cout << array[3] << endl;
cout << array[4] << endl;
return 0;
}
程序输出3和4。这应该是不可能的。我使用g++ 4.3.3
下面是编译和运行命令
$ g++ -W -Wall errorRange.cpp -o errorRange
$ ./errorRange
3
4
只有当分配数组[3000]=3000时，它才会给我一个分割错误。
如果gcc不检查数组边界，我怎么能确定我的程序是正确的，因为它可能导致一些严重的问题以后?
我将上面的代码替换为
vector<int> vint(2);
vint[0] = 0;
vint[1] = 1;
vint[2] = 2;
vint[5] = 5;
cout << vint[2] << endl;
cout << vint[5] << endl;
这个也不会产生误差。
Hint
如果你想要快速约束大小数组的范围错误检查，尝试使用boost::array，(也std::tr1::array from <tr1/array>，它将是下一个c++规范的标准容器)。它比std::vector快得多。它在堆上或类实例内部保留内存，就像int array[]一样。
这是一个简单的示例代码:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/array.hpp>
int main()
{
boost::array<int,2> array;
array.at(0) = 1; // checking index is inside range
array[1] = 2; // no error check, as fast as int array[2];
try
{
// index is inside range
std::cout << "array.at(0) = " << array.at(0) << std::endl;
// index is outside range, throwing exception
std::cout << "array.at(2) = " << array.at(2) << std::endl;
// never comes here
std::cout << "array.at(1) = " << array.at(1) << std::endl;
}
catch(const std::out_of_range& r)
{
std::cout << "Something goes wrong: " << r.what() << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
这个程序将打印:
array.at(0) = 1
Something goes wrong: array<>: index out of range
欢迎来到每一个C/ c++程序员最好的朋友:未定义行为。
由于各种原因，语言标准中没有指定很多内容。这是其中之一。
一般来说，无论何时遇到未定义的行为，都可能发生任何事情。应用程序可能会崩溃，可能会冻结，可能会弹出您的CD-ROM驱动器，或者让恶魔从您的鼻子里出来。它可能会格式化你的硬盘，或者把你所有的色情片都发给你的祖母。
如果你真的很不幸，它甚至可能看起来工作正常。
该语言只是说明如果访问数组范围内的元素应该发生什么。它没有定义如果你出界会发生什么。它今天在编译器上似乎可以工作，但它不是合法的C或c++，并且不能保证它在下次运行程序时仍然可以工作。或者它现在还没有覆盖基本数据，您还没有遇到它将导致的问题。
至于为什么没有边界检查，有几个方面的答案:
An array is a leftover from C. C arrays are about as primitive as you can get. Just a sequence of elements with contiguous addresses. There is no bounds checking because it is simply exposing raw memory. Implementing a robust bounds-checking mechanism would have been almost impossible in C.
In C++, bounds-checking is possible on class types. But an array is still the plain old C-compatible one. It is not a class. Further, C++ is also built on another rule which makes bounds-checking non-ideal. The C++ guiding principle is "you don't pay for what you don't use". If your code is correct, you don't need bounds-checking, and you shouldn't be forced to pay for the overhead of runtime bounds-checking.
So C++ offers the std::vector class template, which allows both. operator[] is designed to be efficient. The language standard does not require that it performs bounds checking (although it does not forbid it either). A vector also has the at() member function which is guaranteed to perform bounds-checking. So in C++, you get the best of both worlds if you use a vector. You get array-like performance without bounds-checking, and you get the ability to use bounds-checked access when you want it.
