From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
To: Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com>,
"Kaz Kylheku (libffi)" <382-725-6798@kylheku.com>,
"Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss"
<libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
Cc: <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: wide function pointer type
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 10:49:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17c6b52d0d0.283a.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54e81ff3a4a6569798ba879c47392d4b19ec599b.camel@gmail.com>
On October 10, 2021 10:44:32 Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss
<libffi-discuss@sourceware.org> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 10.10.2021, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Kaz Kylheku (libffi):
>> On 2021-10-10 04:32, Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I will propose a wide function pointer type (actually
>>> a wide function type) to WG14 for C23 as a common
>>> type for callbacks, closures, which now require an
>>> additional void pointer argument in C APIs. This
>>> is intended to be compatible with ABIs with now
>>> use a static chain register.
>>
>> Opposed. There is nothing wrong with separate arguments
>> for function pointer and context.
>
> Noted. Your argument sbelow all boil down to the point
> that there are cases where it might not be the ideal
> choice. But nobody forces anyone to use it.
>
"I like it" is not by itself a rationale for including something in a core
language standard. This is not something that should be in C. Why,
precisely, can't you just define a struct with two fields and make that
your closure type?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-10 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-10 17:01 Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-10 17:44 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 17:49 ` Daniel Colascione [this message]
2021-10-10 18:05 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 18:17 ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 18:47 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 18:57 ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 19:24 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-16 8:08 ` Jarkko Hietaniemi
2021-10-16 9:35 ` Jarkko Hietaniemi
2021-10-10 18:31 ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-10-10 11:32 Martin Uecker
2021-10-17 23:35 ` Anthony Green
2021-10-18 5:33 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-18 5:58 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-18 7:36 ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-18 7:56 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-19 9:22 ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-19 9:43 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-19 10:15 ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-19 12:13 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20 8:24 ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-20 18:52 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20 9:10 ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-20 9:21 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20 9:27 ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-20 17:27 ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-21 9:48 ` Florian Weimer
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=17c6b52d0d0.283a.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org \
--to=dancol@dancol.org \
--cc=382-725-6798@kylheku.com \
--cc=libffi-discuss@sourceware.org \
--cc=ma.uecker@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).