Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c > #6488

Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments?

Show all headers | View raw

The latest draft of the upcoming C23 standard is:
    https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3096.pdf
It introduces several type-generic functions in <string.h>, replacing
normal functions of the same names: memchr, strchr, strpbrk, strrchr,
strstr.

I'll use strchr() as an example; the same applies to the other str*()
generic functions (but not to memchr()).

The problem this solves is that calling strchr() with a const char*
argument yields a non-const char* result that points into the array.
For example:

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <string.h>
    int main(void) {
        const char s[] = "hello";
        char *p = strchr(s, 'h');
        *p = 'J';           // Undefined behavior
        printf("%s\n", s);  // Likely to print "Jello"
    }

This makes it possible to obtain a non-const pointer to a const object
without a pointer cast.

The C23 strchr() generic function returns a char* if the first argument
is a char*, or a const char* if the first argument is a const char*.

    The stateless search functions in this section (memchr, strchr,
    strpbrk, strrchr, strstr) are *generic functions*. These functions
    are generic in the qualification of the array to be searched and
    will return a result pointer to an element with the same
    qualification as the passed array. If the array to be searched is
    const-qualified, the result pointer will be to a const-qualified
    element. If the array to be searched is not const-qualified, the
    result pointer will be to an unqualified element.

So far so good, and I definitely approve of this change.  It does break
code that calls strchr() with a const char* argument and assigns the
result to a (non-const) char* object.  That's IMHO a minor issue, and
arguably breaking such code is part of the point of the change.  (Making
string literals const would be similar, but I suppose that's still a
bridge too far.)

But I've thought of away in which this could break some existing valid
code, namely code that passes a void* or const void* argument to
strchr().

Currently, since void* can be implicitly converted to char* and vice
versa, such a call is valid.  (I can't think of a *good* reason to write
such a call, but my imagination is not unlimited.)

Question: Is this a valid call in C23?  (It's valid in C17.)

    char hello[] = "hello";
    void *p = strchr((void*)hello, 'h');

An implementation of the generic strchr() will presumably use a generic
selection in a macro definition.  If the generic selection covers only
types char* and const char*, the call will violate a constraint.  If it
also covers void* and const void*, the call will be valid.

The current wording in N3096 suggests that only char* and const char*
are covered, implying that a call with a void* or const void* argument
is a constraint violation.

I suggest that the C23 standard should specify whether void* arguments
are valid or not.  I have a slight preference for making them valid.  If
so, the simplest approach would be for strchr() to return a char* given
a char* or void* argument, or a const char* given a const char* or const
void* argument.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 21:41 -0700
  Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 22:18 -0700
    Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2023-06-02 15:03 +0200
      Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 11:52 -0700
    Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-02 22:01 +0100
      Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-04 21:37 -0700
        Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-04 21:50 -0700
    Re: Can the new generic string functions accept void* arguments? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 15:11 -0700

csiph-web