Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" |
| Date | 2012-08-14 08:56 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <5029F6A3.9070405@loria.fr> (permalink) |
| References | <502949DA.9000604@animats.com> <50297066.1010202@loria.fr> <k0cfg2$7a5$1@dont-email.me> |
Hello, Am 14.08.2012 05:08, schrieb John Nagle: > On 8/13/2012 2:23 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: >> > Relaxation of existing restrictions >> > • Expressions allowed in most array size declarations. (This is the >> > key enhancement.) >> >> I don't see how this is new to C. If you mean you want to extend the >> idea of VLA to file scope, I'd first like to have a reasonable >> semantic for this. (When will the corresponding size expressions be >> evaluated?) > > See page 8, "Array size expressions": "the array size > expressions evaluated where a function is called must produce the > same results when recomputed inside the function when the function > is entered." The key concept here is that array size expressions > are computable using only constants and function parameters > (or structure elements, for structures). So this then would restrict existing use patterns? Currently the evaluation of array sizes at the side of the definition allows arbitrary expressions. It seems that you want to restrict that? You'd have to collect strong arguments to convince people that existing conforming programs will become invalid. >> >> > Features imported from C++11 >> > • auto >> >> Things like this doesn't happen as quickly to C as to C++. > > See previous message by Keith Thompson, who addresses this > in some detail. I know all the details of that and what the auto feature implies. This has been discussed before. And I am not objecting the feature itself (though I would have prefered the gcc typeof extesion) but its syntax. There is no reason that they couldn't have chosen another keyword for this. C is not here to clean up the mess that C++ produces. So if this happens this should be with a different keyword, perhaps _Auto or so, but not auto. >> > • References >> >> why not? but it is unlikely that such a thing will enter C through the >> backdoor of array handling. This would need a very detailed analysis >> and proposal of its own, which should be treated as separate issue. > > C++ references seem to play well with C semantics. If there were > problems in that area, they would have been discovered a decade or two > ago. This also has been discussed several times. So far it seems that the committee was never sufficiently motivated to include them. Easing the handling of VLA could be a strong argument for that, if you elaborate that correctly and precisely. >> > New reserved words >> > • force_cast (storage class, for casts only, allows forcing certain >> casts in strict mode) >> >> different types of cast as they are in C++? > > force_cast is really reinterpret_cast of C++, but the corner-bracket > syntax used in C++ isn't allowed in C. Hence the problem. > The general idea is that, in strict mode (see the paper) C casts > are restricted to memory-safe operations. force_cast is for the > rare occasions it is necessary to override that. >> >> > • void_space (type, for arrays of memory with unspecified contents) >> >> there is simply no need for this since C already has such a data >> type. It is call unsigned char. > > If that were correct, the POSIX declaration of "read" would not > be > > ssize_t read(int fd, void *buf, size_t count); > > But it is. Please don't start distracting us with interfaces that are defined beyond the scope of the C standard. > "void *" was introduced to avoid type conversion problems when going > from uninterpreted bits to a defined type. But "void *" has no size. > We want to have sized arrays of uninterpreted bytes, which can > be converted to and from other types without casting, as with void*, > provided that the sizes match and the type does not contain pointers > or references. I don't see why unsigned char can't serve as such. Or are you just after the gcc extension of allowing pointer arithmetic for void* ? >> >> > New predefined functions >> > • size_t lengthof(array); >> >> ok > > As someone else pointed out, "sizeof" is really an operator, so > "lengthof" should be one as well. It could be defined in the same vein as the offsetof macro, only that there really is no need to standardize this. Anybody can write this immediately as #define lengthof(A) ((sizeof A)/(sizeof A[0])) >> void copybyref(size_t n, int (&a)[n], const int (&b)[n]) > > There's much legacy code, including POSIX, Linux, and > C library APIs in which the size is given last. It's an old > tradition in C. Breaking that would have substantial impact. > > GCC already offers a feature like this as an extension. > See > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html#Variable-Length > > GCC gets around this problem by allowing forward declarations > in parameter lists. In GCC, the above would be written: > > void copybyref(size_t n; int (&a)[n], const int (&b)[n], size_t n) > > where "size_t n;" is a forward declaration, not a parameter. > What's thinking on this? Is it better to have forward declarations > of formal parameters, or to handle array size expressions as a > special, limited form of expression? I personally don't like this gcc extension, prototypes quickly become difficult to read. >> But this already shows that the advantage you are trying to advertise >> is minimal. In existing C such an interface could look >> >> void copybyref(size_t n, int (*a)[n], const int (*b)[n]) >> >> which is a legal way to lift the array dimensions to the >> function. > > C99 lets you go further than that. See ISO/IEC 9899:TC2, Example 4, > page 133: > (page ref to: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf) snip > That code is passing an array by reference, even though > C99 doesn't use that term. So C99 already has much of > what I'm proposing. exactly, and BTW the current standard is C11, if would be good if you use this as your main reference. > This is an obscure feature, one > I hadn't known about. I don't think that it is obscure. That you hadn't know about it doesn't make it so. > It doesn't seem to be used, > or even mentioned, much. This is not allowed in C++. C++ doesn't have VLA in the first place, so sure it can't have it. > In GCC, applying "sizeof" to the array a above returns 4, > That's probably wrong, per 6.3.5.4, para. 2: > "If the type of the operand is a variable length array > type, the operand is evaluated". "sizeof" in C99 is > supposed to be able to access the size of variable length > arrays. This already has been explained else-thread. And again update your reference to C11, C99 is the past. > The hard parts of what I'm proposing seem to be already in C99. > But some of the supporting features needed to make them useful > is missing. some maybe. reference could be a nice feature in that context. On the other hand references for VLA are probably the difficult part of implementing these. Jens
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-13 11:39 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-13 23:23 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-13 17:04 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-13 20:08 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-13 22:23 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-14 11:20 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 14:54 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-14 21:09 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 16:00 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 18:08 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-14 23:05 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-15 06:48 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-15 15:13 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-15 13:00 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-15 22:52 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-15 17:18 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-16 19:20 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-16 13:40 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-16 11:04 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-16 14:35 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-16 11:47 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-16 14:52 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-15 14:41 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2012-08-16 12:39 +0100
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-16 13:28 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2012-08-16 23:52 +0100
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-15 18:56 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 19:23 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-15 21:47 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-16 19:14 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-16 20:28 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 15:05 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-14 21:09 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-14 13:24 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 16:39 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 15:23 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-14 22:58 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-15 00:37 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 16:42 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-15 22:57 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 14:59 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-14 15:35 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 00:51 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 06:43 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 08:31 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 09:14 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 18:58 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 06:45 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-14 22:51 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-15 07:18 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 14:15 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 14:28 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 14:36 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 14:54 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 15:08 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-15 12:50 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 23:22 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-15 14:38 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-16 00:51 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-15 16:32 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-16 09:05 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-15 17:22 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-15 20:29 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-15 12:36 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-15 16:09 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 08:47 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 16:33 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 16:38 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 06:46 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-14 22:28 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-15 08:34 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-15 09:12 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-16 13:09 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2012-08-16 16:21 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-16 15:28 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2012-08-16 19:49 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-14 08:56 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-14 06:18 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-14 12:42 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-14 09:43 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-14 19:52 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-14 21:03 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-14 21:39 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-14 08:26 -0400
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-13 22:44 +0100
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-13 18:05 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-14 21:00 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 21:18 +0000
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-14 23:51 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-17 09:40 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-17 13:30 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-17 23:14 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-18 01:07 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-19 23:14 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-20 00:25 -0700
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-20 11:49 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-08-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-20 23:08 +0200
Re: Initial draft proposal: "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-17 15:33 -0700
csiph-web