Re: [RFC][C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

+ Aaron > On Mar 6, 2025, at 4:27 PM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > Hi Qing, > > Thanks for writing up the RFC and keeping us in the loop. Are you planning to > add “__self.” to GCC's C++ compiler as well in the future? The problem we > have with “__self” being a default w

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

Sorry for the delay. I’m planning on sending out our design rationale of the current approach without the new syntax today. - Yeoul > On Mar 14, 2025, at 9:22 PM, John McCall wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2025, at 15:18, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Freitag, dem 14.03.2025 um 14:42 -0400 schrieb John

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

proposes diagnostics to mitigate potential ambiguity, and propose new builtins that can be used as a suppression and disambiguation mechanism. Best regards, Yeoul > On Mar 26, 2025, at 9:11 AM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > Sorry for the delay. > > I’m planning on sending out our design r

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

Hi Joseph, > On Mar 26, 2025, at 12:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Yeoul Na wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for all the discussions. >> >> I posted the design rationale for our current approach in >> https://discourse.ll

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

> On Mar 28, 2025, at 5:51 AM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > > >> On Mar 27, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: >> >> Yeoul, >> >> Thanks for the writeup. >> >> So, basically, This writeup insisted on introducing a new “structure scope” >

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

side structure without adding > a new “structure scope" should be the best approach to resolve this issue in > C. > > However, I am really hoping that the discussion can be converged soon. So, I > am okay with adding a new “structure scope” > If most of peo

Re: [RFC][C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

r the usability of the language. We are planning to write up alternative proposal without having to introduce a new syntax to the C standard. We’ll discuss how we address problems raised here. Please see my inlined comments. Best, Yeoul > On Mar 6, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Yeoul Na wrote: > >

Re: [RFC][C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

Hi Kees, > On Mar 7, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:27:49PM -0800, Yeoul Na wrote: >> Thanks for writing up the RFC and keeping us in the loop. Are >> you planning to add “__self.” to GCC's C++ compiler as well in > > Isn'

Re: [RFC][C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

+ John & Félix & Patryk & Henrik > On Mar 6, 2025, at 1:44 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > > Hi, > > Since I sent the patch series for “extend counted_by attribute to pointer > fields of structure” two months ago, a lot of discussion were invoked both in > GCC community and CLANG community: > > https:

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:51 PM, John McCall wrote: > > On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:02, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Qing pointed out in four lines of code how there are two different >> token resolution rules being used: one which is reliant upon C's >> current scoping rules and the other which requires a

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

> On Mar 12, 2025, at 3:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:28 PM Yeoul Na <mailto:yeoul...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:51 PM, John McCall wrote: >>> >>> On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:02, Bill Wendling wrote: &g

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

> On Mar 26, 2025, at 1:52 PM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > Hi Joseph, > >> On Mar 26, 2025, at 12:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Yeoul Na wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks for all the discussions. >

Re: [RFC] [C]New syntax for the argument of counted_by attribute for C language

> On Mar 28, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > >> On Mar 28, 2025, at 08:51, Yeoul Na wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 27, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> >>> Yeoul, >>> >>> Thanks for the write

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 23, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Martin Uecker wrote: > >> IMHO there are enough reasons to reject delayed parsing >> as bad design for C. We should work towards proper >> language features that cleanly fit into the language, >> instead of pushing t

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 23, 2025, at 12:30 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 07:47:11AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote: >> IMHO there are enough reasons to reject delayed parsing >> as bad design for C. We should work towards proper >> language features that cleanly fit into the language, >> inst

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 24, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:26:12PM +, Aaron Ballman wrote: >> Ah, apologies, I wasn't clear. My thinking is: we're (Clang folks) >> going to want it to work in C++ mode because of shared headers. If it >> works in C++ mode, then we have t

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

6.pdf Cheers, Yeoul > On Jul 26, 2025, at 9:41 AM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > > >> On Jul 23, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Martin Uecker wrote: >> >>> IMHO there are enough reasons to reject delayed parsing >&

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

nd it uses forward referencing + member name lookup in structure. Here is an example of C code that does that: https://github.com/Hiimsonkul/blink/blob/7fa43c6d8e90acf2a966a9da480e884536b2b79d/blink/machine.h#L231 Cheers, Yeoul > On Jul 28, 2025, at 11:18 AM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 28, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 1:48 PM Qing Zhao <mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 2025, at 16:09, Martin Uecker wrote: >>> Am Montag, dem 28.07.2025 um 11:18 -0700 schrieb Yeoul Na: >

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

Jul 28, 2025, at 4:36 PM, Yeoul Na wrote: > > > >> On Jul 28, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 1:48 PM Qing Zhao > <mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>>> On Jul 28, 2025, at 16:09, Martin Uecker

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 28, 2025, at 5:54 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:52 PM Yeoul Na wrote: >> >> Could someone working on Linux answer my earlier question? Working on a >> compromise solution is one thing, but I’m trying to understand the situation

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 28, 2025, at 10:27 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > >> On Jul 26, 2025, at 12:43, Yeoul Na wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 24, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:26:12PM +, Aaron Ba

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Delayed parsing for bounds safety attributes

> On Jul 29, 2025, at 7:48 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 11:36 PM Martin Uecker > wrote: >> >> Am Montag, dem 28.07.2025 um 17:45 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling: >>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:29 PM Martin Uecker wrote: Am Montag, dem 28.07