public inbox for libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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




  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).