From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC181385841D for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 01:00:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DC181385841D Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id o13so55933533wrs.12 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 17:00:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :subject:content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1wgqsYS13MfuS4Zz9ZK7+FpfyxUSwDpeu7WmjT3FDDo=; b=Scvv/5zkZKCmaODX/jKMRw5lR79zPa4E02nC2Z+ldSZfFuPDPoahrrlT6U5/0Lxyd2 JPvkEo37TSoHeUMAuEM86b9gpbTIyET5kThD2yjVVBXknc09hUhMRS8MKSvlqxERXaf2 8YddU/JyRhbYmBvrOxOjKWf+2hJV95gYF7jafofuv5ohwYhtYrYl9pMROnnAu5m7vrIa Lv1Jvz7YDNOYEi9nsdrQXyxoz/V32OMSdit8yhLU59y8lF0qcMYRh5rWQSE4XxfGeb4L Pjg+CQnzsXbce8NC/VS4W3DQg7aQ/9h+9FW86gb9Zp5zNLezWWT0soTyiKwFcaNw3vrR WJIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bwNtQYptvP8ZBGL5Z33wJu8qRNa1K9jqZ9Nn0xG7SosnsQxT8 WTSkSPHqIe+akhIHcM4zB9Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykWZFDCUDel5LCuFto40NM/eJG9/E8EjVIP7UXjmt6nHIOG1g5klgRIvTwvXUkSwv1Pl8HTQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc88:: with SMTP id g8mr10754287wrr.334.1638406829948; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 17:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.168.10.170] ([170.253.36.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n32sm772501wms.1.2021.12.01.17.00.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Dec 2021 17:00:29 -0800 (PST) Sender: Alejandro Colomar Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 02:00:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier Content-Language: en-US To: Dmitri Gribenko Cc: Joseph Myers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, cfe-dev References: <56a1a945-608e-0e5e-7610-c35481abb980@gmail.com> <4883fa8c-2d99-2611-a8e2-6c7612283da4@gmail.com> <93576cba-19f8-8cf6-6597-7377bda9647f@gmail.com> From: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 01:00:32 -0000 Hi Dmitri On 12/2/21 01:39, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Let's avoid forking C :) > > Do you consider the standard pragma `#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS` to be a > language fork? If not, why is a pragma to control nullability of > pointers different? Sorry, I put the reply at a wrong point in the quote. I didn't refer to the pragma, but the the previous paragraph. Basically, I meant let's not add _Nullable to C3X, and add just _Nonnull. Cheers, Alex