From: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [C2x] Disallow function attributes after function identifier
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:20:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d37a2714-581e-17b5-cb7e-474ee30136e9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02b74788-43b3-da53-8f3b-3b114329f8d6@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1817 bytes --]
On 6/11/22 14:08, Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> > Do we want to add a completely unnecessary feature, just for symmetry
> with C++, even if it poses a danger of breaking (both human and script)
> readability of function declarations/definitions, especially when hidden
> in macros?
>
> I actually don't get the trouble with this. Your tool already can't
> parse declarations if they don't follow a certain coding style, so you
> can just add this restriction to the coding style that's required.
True-ish. But when I mean that my tool requires a same coding style, I
mean that it just requires that the code hasn't been written by some
monkey. Things that are not correctly parsed by my tool are of this kind:
int foo(void)
{
return 7;
}
or
#define empty
int foo empty(void)
{
return 42;
}
Modulo errors in the regexes, any rational indentation is supported
(except for K&R definitions, which are also impossible to parse with a
regex, but ISO C deprecated them a long time ago).
>
> > I still have the hope that if the feature is finally kept in C23,
> absolutely no-one will ever use it, but then I question the introduction
> in the first place.
>
> Well in the same way, `int long signed const typedef long x;` is valid
> C, and I do hope that nobody will ever use it, but I don't think we
> should change C's grammar to disallow it.
Fair point :)
Cheers,
Alex
P.S.: Please consider deprecating 'auto' some day. It would be nice to
see C++'s auto in ISO C some day, even if it's 2060. I'm not entirely
happy doing `#define auto __auto_type` (of course it's UB, but it's nice) ;)
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-11 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-10 20:40 Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-10 21:09 ` Joseph Myers
2022-06-10 21:35 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-10 21:16 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-10 21:31 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-10 22:47 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-11 9:03 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-06-11 12:08 ` Gabriel Ravier
2022-06-11 20:20 ` Alejandro Colomar [this message]
2022-06-13 15:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-11 12:53 ` Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d37a2714-581e-17b5-cb7e-474ee30136e9@gmail.com \
--to=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=gabravier@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).