Is it UB to access a member by casting an object pointer to `char *`, then doing `*(member_type*)(pointer + offset)`?

Here I will refer to C++20 (draft) wording, because one relevant editorial issue was fixed between C++17 and C++20 and also it is possible to refer to specific sentences in HTML version of the C++20 draft, but otherwise there is nothing new in comparison to C++17.

At first, definitions of pointer values [basic.compound]/3:

Every value of pointer type is one of the following:
— a pointer to an object or function (the pointer is said to point to the object or function), or
— a pointer past the end of an object ([expr.add]), or
— the null pointer value for that type, or
— an invalid pointer value.

Now, lets see what happens in the (char *)&a expression.

Let me not prove that a is an lvalue denoting the object of type A, and I will say «the object a» to refer to this object.

The meaning of the &a subexpression is covered in [expr.unary.op]/(3.2):

if the operand is an lvalue of type T, the resulting expression is a prvalue of type “pointer to T” whose result is a pointer to the designated object

So, &a is a prvalue of type A* with the value «pointer to (the object) a».

Now, the cast in (char *)&a is equivalent to reinterpret_cast<char*>(&a), which is defined as static_cast<char*>(static_cast<void*>(&a)) ([expr.reinterpret.cast]/7).

Cast to void* doesn't change the pointer value ([conv.ptr]/2):

A prvalue of type “pointer to cv T”, where T is an object type, can be converted to a prvalue of type “pointer to cv void”. The pointer value ([basic.compound]) is unchanged by this conversion.

i.e. it is still «pointer to (the object) a».

[expr.static.cast]/13 covers the outer static_cast<char*>(...):

A prvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to a prvalue of type “pointer to cv2 T”, where T is an object type and cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1. If the original pointer value represents the address A of a byte in memory and A does not satisfy the alignment requirement of T, then the resulting pointer value is unspecified. Otherwise, if the original pointer value points to an object a, and there is an object b of type T (ignoring cv-qualification) that is pointer-interconvertible with a, the result is a pointer to b. Otherwise, the pointer value is unchanged by the conversion.

There is no object of type char which is pointer-interconvertible with the object a ([basic.compound]/4):

Two objects a and b are pointer-interconvertible if:
— they are the same object, or
— one is a union object and the other is a non-static data member of that object ([class.union]), or
— one is a standard-layout class object and the other is the first non-static data member of that object, or, if the object has no non-static data members, any base class subobject of that object ([class.mem]), or
— there exists an object c such that a and c are pointer-interconvertible, and c and b are pointer-interconvertible.

which means that the static_cast<char*>(...) doesn't change the pointer value and it is the same as in its operand, namely: «pointer to a».

So, (char *)&a is a prvalue of type char* whose value is «pointer to a». This value is stored into char* ptr variable. Then, when you try to do pointer arithmetic with such a value, namely ptr + offset, you step into [expr.add]/6:

For addition or subtraction, if the expressions P or Q have type “pointer to cv T”, where T and the array element type are not similar, the behavior is undefined.

For the purposes of pointer arithmetic, the object a is considered to be an element of an array A[1] ([basic.compound]/3), so the array element type is A, the type of the pointer expression P is «pointer to char», char and A are not similar types (see [conv.qual]/2), so the behavior is undefined.

This question, and the other one about launder, both seem to me to boil down to interpretation of the last sentence of C++17 [expr.static.cast]/13, which covers what happens for static_cast<T *> applied to an operand of pointer to unrelated type which is correctly aligned:

A prvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to a prvalue of type “pointer to cv2 T ”,

[...]

Otherwise, the pointer value is unchanged by the conversion.

Some posters appear to take this to mean that the result of the cast cannot point to an object of type T, and consequently that reinterpret_cast with pointers or references can only be used on pointer-interconvertible types.

But I don't see that as justified, and (this is a reductio ad absurdum argument) that position would also imply:

• The resolution to CWG1314 is overturned.
• Inspecting any byte of a standard-layout object is not possible (since casting to unsigned char * or whatever character type supposedly cannot be used to access that byte).
• The strict aliasing rule would be redundant since the only way to actually achieve such aliasing is to use such casts.
• There would be no normative text to justify the note "[Note: Converting a prvalue of type “pointer to T1 ” to the type “pointer to T2 ” (where T1 and T2 are object types and where the alignment requirements of T2 are no stricter than those of T1) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value. —end note ]"
• offsetof is useless (and the C++17 changes to it were therefore redundant)

It seems like a more sensible interpretation to me that this sentence means the result of the cast points to the same byte in memory as the operand. (As opposed to pointing to some other byte, as can happen for some pointer casts not covered by this sentence). Saying "the value is unchanged" does not mean "the type is unchanged", e.g. we describe conversion from int to long as preserving the value.

Also, I guess this may be controversial to some but I am taking as axiomatic that if a pointer's value is the address of an object, then the pointer points to that object, unless the Standard specifically excludes the case.

This is consistent with the text of [basic.compound]/3 which says the converse, i.e. that if a pointer points to an object, then its value is the address of the object.

There doesn't seem to be any other explicit statement defining when a pointer can or cannot be said to point to an object, but basic.compound/3 says that all pointers must be one of four cases (points to an object, points past the end, null, invalid).

Examples of excluded cases include:

• The use case of std::launder specifically addresses a situation where there was such language ruling out the use of the un-laundered pointer.
• A past-the-end pointer does not point to an object. (basic.compound/3)