Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

[Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3878 bytes --]

Hi Martin,

On 9/3/22 16:35, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 03.09.2022, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 9/3/22 14:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> GCC will warn if the bound is specified inconsistently between
>>> declarations and also emit warnings if it can see that a buffer
>>> which is passed is too small:
>>>
>>> https://godbolt.org/z/PsjPG1nv7
>>
>> That's very good news!
>>
>> BTW, it's nice to see that GCC doesn't need 'static' for array
>> parameters.  I never understood what the static keyword adds there.
>> There's no way one can specify an array size an mean anything other than
>> requiring that, for a non-null pointer, the array should have at least
>> that size.
> 
>  From the C standard's point of view,
> 
> void foo(int n, char buf[n]);
> 
> is semantically equivalent to
> 
> void foo(int, char *buf);
> 
> and without 'static' the 'n' has no further meaning
> (this is different for pointers to arrays).

I know.  I just don't understand the rationale for that decission. :/

> 
> The static keyword implies that the pointer is be valid and
> non-zero and that there must be at least 'n' elements
> accessible, so in some sense it is stronger (it implies
> alid non-zero pointers), but at the same time it does not
> imply a bound.

That stronger meaning, I think is a mistake by the standard.
Basically, [static n] means the same as [n] combined with [[gnu::nonnull]].
What the standard should have done would be to keep those two things 
separate, since one may want to declare non-null non-array pointers, or 
possibly-null array ones.  So the standard should have standardized some 
form of nonnull for that.  But the recent discussion about presenting 
nonnull pointers as [static 1] is horrible.  But let's wait till the 
future hopefully fixes this.

> 
> But I agree that 'n' without 'static' should simply imply
> a bound and I think we should use it this way even when
> the standard currently does not attach a meaning to it.

Yep.

[...]

>> What about taking something from K&R functions for this?:
>>
>> int foo(q; w; int a[q], int q, int s[w], int w);
>>
>> By not specifying the types, the syntax is again short.
>> This is left-to-right, so no problems with global variables, and no need
>> for complex parsers.
>> Also, by not specifying types, now it's more obvious to the naked eye
>> that there's a difference:
> 
> I am ok with the syntax, but I am not sure how this would
> work. If the type is determined only later you would still
> have to change parsers (some C compilers do type
> checking  and folding during parsing, so need the types
> to be known during parsing) and you also still have the
> problem with the mutual dependencies.

This syntax resembles a lot K&R syntax.  Any C compiler that supports 
them (and I guess most compilers out there do) should be easily 
convertible to support this syntax (at least more easily than other 
alternatives).  But this is just a guess.

> 
> We thought about using this syntax
> 
> int foo(char buf[.n], int n);
> 
> because it is new syntax which means we can restrict the
> size to be the name of a parameter instead of allowing
> arbitrary expressions, which then makes forward references
> less problematic.  It is also consistent with designators in
> initializers and could also be extend to annotate
> flexible array members or for storing pointers to arrays
> in structures:

It's not crazy.  I don't have much to argue against it.

> 
> struct {
>    int n;
>    char buf[.n];
> };
> 
> struct {
>    int n;
>    char (*buf)[.n];
> };

Perhaps some doubts about how this would work for nested structures, but 
not unreasonable.

Cheers,

Alex

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]