Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Compatibility question |
| Date | 2012-10-22 12:29 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <aejeq5FqjpsU11@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <Li3Gtk.7Rk.IPeax@gmail.com> <aeejkmFnpi3U11@mid.individual.net> <bTPtYj.bf9.VEBUJ@gmail.com> <aegfofFnpi3U14@mid.individual.net> <SodxpQ.GJL.0E2fB@gmail.com> |
On 10/22/12 11:54, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:26:54AM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 10/20/12 17:01, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 04:20:53PM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/12 16:08, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>>>> I have been using structures containing zero-length arrays as a means
>>>>> of combining descriptors and array data in a single allocation unit.
>>>>> Something like the following is a common idiom:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct foo {
>>>>> int a, b;
>>>>> size_t len;
>>>>> char p[0];
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> That should really be
>>>>
>>>> char p[];
>>>>
>>>> Which is the standardised (as of C99) form of the struct hack.
>>>>
>>>>> So far, so good. My questions regards the availability of zero-length
>>>>> arrays in common systems. That is, if I wish my code to be compatible
>>>>> with most C compilers in use today, should I worry about avoiding
>>>>> zero-length arrays, or is the feature old enough, with sufficient
>>>>> prevalence to make it's use reasonable in portable code?
>>>>
>>>> Most compilers should support the standard form, or the zero length
>>>> array form of the struct hack.
>>>
>>> I was mainly wondering what the cutoff date was for this feature. If
>>> C compilers deployed within the last ten years or so support the p[0]
>>> idiom, I won't feel as if I'm excluding platforms that might otherwise
>>> be expected to run my code. The workaround is not a huge problem
>>> since the accesses will be insulated from the user by my functions,
>>> but it is less trouble to write if I don't have to cast everything.
>>
>> As Ben pointed out, the pre-C99 form was a single element array. I
>> think the zero element array is a gcc extension. So if you really want
>> to support every possible compiler, use p[1] and document what you are
>> doing. Otherwise use the standard form.
>
> Working on another part of the software I'm writing, I learned today
> that I must use TLS. There is no point trying to get around that
> constraint, so the list of potential targets is going to shrink quite
> a lot.
Times Literary Supplement?
> Now that I've noticed that the GCC documentation has been updated (I
> may not have read that section for ten years, now that I think of it),
> it does indeed say that the C99 standard includes support for flexible
> arrays, with similar semantics to the old gcc zero subscript hack, so
> I will use that.
You can't use a VLA as a structure member (how would you declare it?).
--
Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-20 03:08 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-20 16:20 +1300
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-20 11:50 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-20 11:41 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 23:04 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-10-21 20:27 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-20 04:01 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-21 09:26 +1300
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 22:54 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-22 12:29 +1300
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-22 02:27 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 02:28 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-22 11:18 -0400
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 16:19 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-22 17:37 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-22 17:40 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-22 17:30 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-22 10:52 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 18:42 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-22 21:06 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 22:52 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-23 03:33 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 12:28 +0000
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 16:45 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:53 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-23 12:41 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 21:28 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-23 20:57 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-23 12:26 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 20:39 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-24 00:57 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-23 20:06 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-24 11:18 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 12:04 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-24 23:10 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 16:58 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-25 01:46 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 19:40 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 20:20 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Compatibility question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-24 17:55 -0400
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-10-24 15:21 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 03:30 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-26 13:02 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 00:04 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-10-27 20:15 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-10-27 16:36 -0600
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 17:36 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-27 22:42 +0300
Re: Compatibility question Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-10-27 14:30 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-27 22:57 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-27 17:04 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-27 18:04 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-24 16:46 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 01:18 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-27 21:08 +0300
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 17:38 +0000
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 00:38 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-22 16:50 -0700
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 12:33 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-10-22 14:23 -0700
Re: Compatibility question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-22 17:26 -0400
Re: Compatibility question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-23 10:55 +1300
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 23:27 +0000
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-22 22:44 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-22 17:15 -0500
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 00:13 +0100
Re: Compatibility question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-22 18:35 -0400
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 00:14 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 23:42 +0000
Re: Compatibility question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-23 13:35 +1300
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-22 17:01 -0700
Re: Compatibility question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-23 01:47 +0100
Re: Compatibility question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-21 19:27 -0700
csiph-web