Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

[Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>]

Hi Alejandro,

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:45 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
<alx.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 11/23/21 12:17, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> > Hi Alejandro,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via
> > cfe-dev <cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> First of all,
> >> I see unnecessary (probably over-engineered) qualifiers:
> >>
> >> - _Null_unspecified seems to me the same as nothing.
> >> If I didn't specify its nullability,
> >> it's by definition unspecified.  Right?
> >>
> >> - _Nullable seems to me also the same as nothing.
> >> The language allows for a pointer to be NULL,
> >> so if you don't specify if it can or not be null,
> >> you better stay on the safe side and consider it as nullable.
> >
> > _Nullable is used in conjunction with the `#pragma clang
> > assume_nonnull begin/end` pragma that flips the default:
> >
> > ```
> > #pragma clang assume_nonnull begin
> > int *global_int_ptr; // implicitly _Nonnull
> > #pragma clang assume_nonnull end
> > ```
> >
> > Within these pragma brackets, you need to use _Nullable to get the
> > opposite behavior.
> >
> > The pragma itself is useful because it reduces the amount of noise the
> > annotations introduce. When these annotations were adopted in Apple
> > SDKs, it was found that in practice most pointers are non-nullable. So
> > if we only had _Nonnull, we would have to annotate most pointers.
> > Instead, Apple's SDKs bracket every header contents with this pragma,
> > and instead annotate nullable pointers, significantly reducing the
> > amount of annotations.
>
> That's interesting.  Most of my functions also tipically are full of
> [[gnu::nonnull]], so the _Nonnull default seems the best thing.
>
> However, would that be viable in old code that relies on standard C?
> I think that it would, but maybe you have more experience.  Do you agree
> with the following?
>
> Let's imagine a scenario where C3X specifies that non-qualified pointers
> are nonnull.  And there's only a qualifier, _Nullable, to allow NULL.
> Asigning _Nullable to nonnull would issue a diagnostic.

I think C3X specifying that non-qualified pointers are nonnnull would
be a showstopper, I don't think it is likely to happen given how the
users and the committee value backward compatibility that C has
offered throughout the decades.

If I were to speculate what would happen if C3X did flip the default,
I think it would be treated by the community as a language fork.
Pre-C3X headers won't work correctly when included in C3X programs,
making incremental adoption of C3X syntax, as it was intended to be
used, impossible. Projects would likely invent a NULLABLE macro, which
would expand to _Nullable in C3X and nothing in earlier versions, to
enable an incremental transition.

That's why Clang introduced the pragma, enabling new rules to be
adopted incrementally.

> Also, do you have any experience in avoiding to diagnose a _Nullable to
> nonnull assignment _after_ explicitly comparing to NULL?  I.e., allow
> the following:
>
> int *_Nullable p;
> int *q;
>
> if (!p)
>         q = p;

Internally at Google we have a checker based on the dataflow analysis
framework (https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2021-October/069098.html)
that diagnoses usages of std::optional<T>::value() not guarded by
has_value(). We are planning to upstream it after we finish
upstreaming the dataflow framework itself. Ensuring guarded usage of
std::optional<T>::value() is very similar to diagnosing dereferences
of nullable pointers. I think a lot of the experience is transferable.
However, we haven't attempted to implement a pointer nullability check
yet, so I don't yet understand all corner cases that arise in real
world software.

However, fundamentally, there are a few questions that you need to answer:

- does _Nullable create a distinct type or not? It is extremely
important when you consider C++.

- do you want nullability-related diagnostics to be mandatory, or
optional? For example, a compiler is not required to issue a
diagnostic about a program that violates the constraints of
`restrict`.

If _Nullable does not create a distinct type, and `T*` is the same
type as `T* _Nullable`, then we can't rely on the regular type system
mechanisms to issue diagnostics.

If _Nullable creates a distinct type, then according to regular C type
checking rules, you would get a warning on the `q = p` assignment
regardless of the `if (!p)` check. That's how the C type system works,
it is not flow-sensitive.

If we want the diagnostics to be fllow-sensitive like in your example
(I think it would be the best choice), then we need to add a new
flow-sensitive component to the C type system. I don't think there is
a precedent for this in C right now. I'm not sure how the committee or
implementors would react to such a proposal.

Dmitri

-- 
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>*/