msebor

5 ms·

1.
by msebor 6y ago
I'm not aware of recent proposals for those but we have discussed ideas along those lines (closures: N2030, C++ lambdas, Apple Blocks: N1451, and I think there was one from Cilk). I think there was interest but not enough support for
2.
by msebor 6y ago
I'd expect a proposal for (1) to be well received. The only proposal I recall that deals with (2) is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2067.pdf . I think it's still being di
3.
by msebor 6y ago
WG14 in general looks favorably at proposals to align C more closely with C++ (within the overall spirit of the language) and I'd expect (1) would viewed in that light. I'd also say there is consensus that (2) would be beneficial.
4.
by msebor 6y ago
Several of us discussed typeof and I'd expect a proposal for a feature along these lines to be well received. (I recall someone even saying they're working on one but that shouldn't stop anyone from submitting one of their o
5.
by msebor 6y ago
There are many improved versions of string APIs out there, too many in fact to choose from, and most suffer from one flaw or another, depending on one's point of view. Most of my recent proposals to incorporate some that do solve some
6.
by msebor 6y ago
C17 doesn't look much different than C89. If you are used to K&R C there may be some adjustment but I would expect it to be manageable. What might perhaps be more challenging is adjusting to the changes in compilers. They tend to
7.
by msebor 6y ago
First, there needs to be a proposal for adding a feature (I'm not aware of one having been submitted recently). Second, any non-trivial proposed feature needs to have some existing user experience behind it. For libraries that typica
8.
by msebor 6y ago
memcpy and memmove aren't special. The part that discusses the copying of allocated objects is 6.5, p6, quoted below: The effective type of an object for an access to its stored value is the declared type of the object, if any. If a
9.
by msebor 6y ago
This is a good example. Let me flesh it out a bit more to illustrate a specific instance of this problem: int a[2][2]; int f (int i, int j) { int t = a[1][j]; a[0][i] = 0; // cannot change a[1]
10.
by msebor 6y ago
This is a common misconception (or poor way of phrasing it, sorry). Compiler implementers don't go looking for instances of undefined behavior in a program with the goal of optimizing it in some way. There is little value in optimizi
11.
by msebor 6y ago
An object of any type, initialized or not, can be read by an lvalue of unsigned char (or any character type). That lets functions like memcpy (either the standard one or a hand-rolled loop) copy arbitrary chunks of memory. There's som
12.
by msebor 6y ago
Yes, it's undefined. It involves a read of an uninitialized local variable. Except for the special case of unsigned char, any uninitialized read is undefined.
13.
by msebor 6y ago
Most of us on the committee would like to see more participation from other experts. The committee's mailing list should be open even to non-members. Attendance by non-members at meetings might require an informal invitation (I imagi
14.
by msebor 6y ago
Casting between the three character types is safe and doesn't violate aliasing rules. In addition, objects of all types can be accessed by lvalues of any of the three character types (though unsigned char is recommended), so there&#x2
15.
by msebor 6y ago
Yes, both :) There are a few in public domain that might be helpful to experiment with. Clang has had a static analyzer for a while and GCC 10 adds one as well (and the maintainer is looking for help with implementing checkers so that&#x2
16.
by msebor 6y ago
Robert's upcoming book has a survey of a few popular IDEs.
17.
by msebor 6y ago
The ELF visibility attributes solve the part of the problem at the binary level (by hiding private library APIs from the application). The rest should be doable by structuring the project sources and headers in a suitable way.
18.
by msebor 6y ago
The committee has reviewed a proposal (document N2360) to for const-correct string functions. But making function signatures const-correct solves only a small part of the problem. A new API can only be used in new code, and casts can remov
19.
by msebor 6y ago
The C charter and the C committee's job is to standardize existing practice. That means codifying features that emerge as successful in multiple implementations (compilers or libraries), and that are in the overall spirit of the langu
20.
by msebor 6y ago
Some implementations have been making a lot of effort to do just that. GCC in particular has been adding these types of checks (either as warnings or sanitizers) in recent years and although there is still much to improve I'd like to
21.
by msebor 6y ago
There are "projects" underway to clean up the spec where it's viewed as either buggy, inconsistent, or underspecified. The atomics and threads sections are a coupled of example. There are efforts to define the behavior in ca
22.
by msebor 6y ago
Some instances of undefined behavior at translation time can effectively be avoided in practice by tightening up requirements on implementations to diagnose them. But strictly speaking, because the standard allows compilers to continue to
23.
by msebor 6y ago
That doesn't seem likely. There have been no proposals for anything like it and there is a general resistance to subsetting either C or C++ (the exception being making support for new features optional).
24.
by msebor 6y ago
Fixing minor bugs or inconsistencies and reducing the number and kinds of instances of undefined behavior are some of the efforts keeping the C committee busy. Reviewing proposals to incorporate features supported by common implementations