Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 12:28 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 11:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > But that all seem solvable issues on the compiler side.
>
[... Itanium, value range analysis, no assertions in kernel...]
> Now, would we want to have proper value *sta
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 05:07, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> VLA use *less* stack than a fixed size arrays with fixed bound.
Not really. You end up with tons of problems, not the least of which
is how to actually analyze the stack size. It also gets *very* nasty
to have code that declares the VLA size u
On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 12:39, David Laight wrote:
> From: Vincent Mailhol
> > Sent: 05 December 2024 15:26
> >
> > On Thu. 5 Dec 2024 at 03:30, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Vincent Mailhol
> > > > Sent: 02 December 2024 17:33
> > > >
> > > > From: Vincent Mailhol
> > > >
> > > > For completio
From: Vincent Mailhol
> Sent: 07 December 2024 13:51
...
> > > It seems to me that the long term solution to this problem are the
> > > constexpr functions.
> >
> > How would constexpr functions help here? (I am a bit sceptical about
> > constexpr functions.)
>
> I was thinking of some of the "si
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 11:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> But that all seem solvable issues on the compiler side.
You know, there was a whole *architecture* that was designed and
predicated on "it's all solvable on the compiler side".
That architecture was pure and utter *shit*.
Because no, it's no
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 11:51, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 10:19 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> >
> > If there is one feature of C I would have liked it is "allow inline
> > functions and statement expressions with constant arguments as
> > constant expressions".
>
> Ther
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 15:52, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Can you point me to some horror stories?
So the main issues tended to be about various static verification tools.
Ranging from things like the stackleak plugin for gcc, where handling
VLA's and alloca() (which are pretty much the same thing w
On Sun. 8 Dec. 2024 at 00:10, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 22:50 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> > On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 à 22:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > >
> ...
>
> >
> > I was invited to WG14 this September. For now, I am only lurking. The
> > thing I have in mind right
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 10:19 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 04:24, Vincent Mailhol
> wrote:
> >
> > > No good - expands everything twice.
> >
> > And? __is_const_zero() does not evaluate its arguments, so no side effect:
>
> No, the problem is literally the expans
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 07 December 2024 20:31
...
> We're currently still accepting gcc-5.1 as a compiler, although it's
> time to look at that and probably (judging by what stable distros use)
> upgrade to something like gcc-8.1 as the minimum supported compiler
> version.
That's going to a
From: Martin Uecker
> Sent: 07 December 2024 19:52
...
> > Of course, often the compiler *does* have helper builtins, but we
> > can't use them, because they aren't *quite* the right thing. Like that
> > "__builtin_constant_p()" not actually working for some situations
> > where we absolutely need
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 21:00 + schrieb David Laight:
> From: Martin Uecker
> > Sent: 07 December 2024 19:52
...
>
> > There exist proposals along those lines for C2Y.
> >
> > From a more near-term solution, I wonder if making it possible (or
> > easier) to return integer constant expr
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 22:50 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 à 22:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
...
>
> I was invited to WG14 this September. For now, I am only lurking. The
> thing I have in mind right now is to write a paper to allow the use of
> static_assert() in
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 22:50 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 à 22:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 21:45 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> > > On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 at 17:39, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 16:26 +0900
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 04:24, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>
> > No good - expands everything twice.
>
> And? __is_const_zero() does not evaluate its arguments, so no side effect:
No, the problem is literally the expansion.
Double expansion of these fundamental helpers gets exponential,
because they ar
From: Martin Uecker
> Sent: 07 December 2024 21:06
>
> Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 21:00 + schrieb David Laight:
> > From: Martin Uecker
> > > Sent: 07 December 2024 19:52
> ...
>
> >
> > > There exist proposals along those lines for C2Y.
> > >
> > > From a more near-term solution, I wonder
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 10:26 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 05:07, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > VLA use *less* stack than a fixed size arrays with fixed bound.
>
> Not really. You end up with tons of problems, not the least of which
> is how to actually analyze the
From: Martin Uecker
> Sent: 07 December 2024 08:40
...
> I find it amazing how much time the Linux kernel community spends
> revising code to make it work perfectly.
>
> Still, I am wondering whether some of this time and effort should not
> be targeted at C compilers and language work to make the
From: Vincent Mailhol
> Sent: 07 December 2024 07:43
...
> > So maybe the slightly long lines:
> > #define const_true(x) _Generic(0 ? (void *)((x) + 0 ? 0L : 1L) : (char *)0,
> > char *: 1, void *: 0)
> > #define const_expr(x) _Generic(0 ? (void *)((x) + 0 ? 0L : 0L) : (char *)0,
> > char *: 1, v
Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 16:26 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> > On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 15:40, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 02:25 + schrieb David Laight:
> > > > > > From: Vincent Mailhol
> > > > > > > > Sent: 05 December 2024 15:31
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 16:19, Vincent Mailhol
wrote:
> On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 15:14, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 at 18:26, David Laight wrote:
(...)
> > I may have liked "!!" for being very idiomatic and traditional C, but
> > there were those pesky compilers that warn about
On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 at 20:19, David Laight wrote:
> From: Vincent Mailhol
> > Sent: 07 December 2024 07:43
> ...
> > > So maybe the slightly long lines:
> > > #define const_true(x) _Generic(0 ? (void *)((x) + 0 ? 0L : 1L) : (char
> > > *)0, char *: 1, void *: 0)
> > > #define const_expr(x) _Gener
On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 at 17:39, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 16:26 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> > > On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 15:40, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > > Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 02:25 + schrieb David Laight:
> > > > > > > From: Vincent Mailhol
> > > > >
On 6 December 2024 12:33:38 EET, "Murthy, Arun R"
wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:29:55PM +, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
>> > > > > -Original Message-
>> > > > > From: Dmitry Baryshkov
>> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 5:17 PM
>> > > > > To: Murthy, Arun R
>> > > > > Cc: i
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 21:45 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 at 17:39, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 16:26 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
...
> > I find it amazing how much time the Linux kernel community spends
> > revising code to make it wo
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 10:33 + schrieb David Laight:
> From: Martin Uecker
> > Sent: 07 December 2024 08:40
> ...
> > I find it amazing how much time the Linux kernel community spends
> > revising code to make it work perfectly.
> >
> > Still, I am wondering whether some of this time an
On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 à 22:19, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 21:45 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
> > On Sat. 7 Dec. 2024 at 17:39, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, dem 06.12.2024 um 16:26 +0900 schrieb Vincent Mailhol:
>
> ...
>
> > > I find it amazing how much time th
27 matches
Mail list logo
