From: Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>,
"Kaz Kylheku (libffi)" <382-725-6798@kylheku.com>,
Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: wide function pointer type
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 20:47:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7e6bdb9ddd6add840ec46a9069722f27c162d273.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17c6b6c63b0.283a.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org>
Am Sonntag, den 10.10.2021, 11:17 -0700 schrieb Daniel Colascione:
> On October 10, 2021 11:05:07 Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Am Sonntag, den 10.10.2021, 10:49 -0700 schrieb Daniel Colascione:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Sure. There are at least five reasons:
> >
> > - one now does has to do it manually which is
> > inconvenient because it has to be done for each type,
> > although this a common pattern which is trivial
> > to automate.
> >
> > - APIs are often unsafe because they have to use
> > void pointer to be generic. When the void pointer
> > can be packaged into the wide pointer this problem
> > goes away.
> >
> > - APIs are often different for no good reason.
> > Having a standard approach would make this more
> > canonical, hence simpler and less error prone,
> > and also more compatible - requiring less adapter
> > code.
> >
> > - There are APIs where a pointer to a
> > function is expected but there is no data pointer.
> > Then other languages have a problem interfacing
> > with such APIs. (or why does libffi generate
> > trampolines?)
> >
> > - Finally, C might get lambda expressions
> > which are far more useful with such a pointer type.
> > (for nested function you could avoid executable
> > stack).
> >
> >
> > All five are good reasons to put a standard
> > approach in the core language in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > But I am actually not interested in this discussion
> > and do not have time for it.
> >
> > I am more interested in constructive technical
> > feedback.
>
> Your proposal doesn't actually solve any of these problems though, and as
> we agree, users can already trivially make their own closure types.
I wonder why you think it does not address
these problems?
> What *would* be interesting is a new standard library facility for making
> libffi-style closures and a standard struct type for packaging the things.
> *That's* something that could be justified for inclusion in a standard
> library, since it's not something that programs can make on their own
> without the kind of platform specific glue that libffi provides.
I also would love to have this, but see below...
> Basically,
> the interface would look something like this:
>
> typedef opaque_mumble stdclosure_t;
>
> // Returns a callable function pointer or NULL on error with errno set
> void* stdclosure_init(stdclosure_t* closure, void* fnptr, void* data);
A void* might not be big enough for a callable function
pointer an all architectures supported by C so this
needs to return something like
void (*)();
(for POSIX this is not a problem)
> void stsclosure_destroy(stdclosure_t* closure);
>
> The function pointer returned by stdclosure_init would, when called, call
> FNPTR with an extra initial parameter (or trailing parameter or something)
> of type void* and value DATA and all the remaining parameters with which it
> was called.
>
> This facility would actually probably have to be more complicated in real
> life due to varying platform ABIs, but you get the idea. This is something
> that could belong in the standard because it'd provide a generic
> abstraction for something every platform can do but that every platform has
> to do in a slightly different way.
One problem could be that this requires generating
trampolines at run-time (and it is not clear we
can do this everywhere where C is supported) or
having a fixed set of preallocated trampolines.
The other limitation (which the new type would
avoid) is the need for dynamic resource allocation,
which is sometimes not desirable.
But I would love to see such a proposal
brought forward.
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-10 18:47 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
2021-10-10 18:05 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 18:17 ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 18:47 ` Martin Uecker [this message]
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=7e6bdb9ddd6add840ec46a9069722f27c162d273.camel@gmail.com \
--to=ma.uecker@gmail.com \
--cc=382-725-6798@kylheku.com \
--cc=dancol@dancol.org \
--cc=libffi-discuss@sourceware.org \
/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).