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

Groups > comp.std.c > #1800

Re: What is a "fundamental type"?

Show key headers only | View raw

[This is a reply to followups from both Tim Rentsch and Harald van Dijk.]

Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> What exactly is a "fundamental type"?
>
> AFAICS there is no definition for the term.  I took it to
> mean a C type other than a 'derived type' (ie, not an array
> type, or struct type, or pointer type, etc).
[...]

Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> writes:
> On Dec 22, 12:27 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> N1370 6.2.8p4 says:
>>
>>     Alignments are represented as values of the type size_t. Valid
>>     alignments include only those values returned by an
>>     _Alignof expression for fundamental types, plus an additional
>>     implementation-defined set of values, which may be empty. Every
>>     valid alignment value shall be a nonnegative integral power
>>     of two.
>>
>> This and J.3.13 are the only occurrences of the phrase "fundamental
>> types" in the document; no definition is given.  It's related to
>> the defined term "fundamental alignment", but it's not clear how.
>
> I don't think it is. The text mostly comes from C++ (or was written
> for C and C++ at the same time), which says:
>
>> Alignments are represented as values of the type std::size_t. Valid
>> alignments include only those values returned by an alignof
>> expression for the fundamental types plus an additional
>> implementation-defined set of values, which may be empty. Every
>> alignment value shall be a non-negative integral power of two.
>
> C++'s "fundamental type" is very close to C's "basic type": for types
> that are part of both languages, the only type that is a "fundamental
> type" but not a "basic type" is void, which is not relevant here as
> alignof can only be applied to complete object types. I think it
> should be replaced by "basic type" in this text.
>
> A fundamental alignment is simply an alignment no stricter than that
> of max_align_t. It need not be the alignment of any fundamental type.

I'm not happy with either interpretation (which isn't to say that
it's incorrect).

Both your interpretations say that the "fundamental types" (ignoring
void) are a subset of the scalar types.

The use of the word "fundamental" in both 6.2.8p2:

    A *fundamental alignment* is represented by an alignment less
    than or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the
    implementation in all contexts, which is equal to _Alignof
    (max_align_t).

and 6.2.8p4:

    Alignments are represented as values of the type size_t. Valid
    alignments include only those values returned by an _Alignof
    expression for fundamental types, plus an additional
    implementation-defined set of values, which may be empty.

strongly suggests a relationship between "fundamental alignment" and
"fundamental type".  One might reasonably infer that the fundamental
alignments are the alignments of the fundamental types.

The alignment of max_align_t is explicitly stated to be a
"fundamental alignment", but max_align_t is only required to be
an *object* type.  For example, a conforming implementation could
have alignments no greater than 4 for all scalar types (or all
"fundamental types"), but max_align_t could be a struct type with
an alignment of 8.

So we have three disjoint subsets of permitted alignment values:

1. Alignments of fundamental/basic/scalar types.

2. Alignments greater than the above up to _Alignof (max_align_t).
   This set may be empty.

3. Alignments greater than _Alignof (max_align_t) which may be
   specified in an alignment clause.  This set may also be empty.

The "fundamental alignments" are subsets 1 and 2; the "extended
alignments" are subset 3.

IMHO, the distinction between subsets 1 and 2 is not particularly
useful.  I see the point in mentioning that some fundamental
alignments may exceed those of any scalar types, but it doesn't
really add any useful information -- and I find the way it's worded
confusing.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Thread

What is a "fundamental type"? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-22 03:27 -0800
  Re: What is a "fundamental type"? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-22 08:21 -0800
    Re: What is a "fundamental type"? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-22 12:29 -0800
      Re: What is a "fundamental type"? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-23 08:47 -0800
  Re: What is a "fundamental type"? Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2012-12-22 10:17 -0800

csiph-web