My kingdom for fully specified, well defined portable bitfields.
The C23 edition of Modern C
101–110 of 360 posts
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd be surprised: Zig has one UB (Undefined Behaviour) that C doesn't have! In release fast mode, unsigned overflow/underflow is undefined in Zig whereas in C it wraps. :-) Of course C has many UBs that Zig doesn't have, so C is far less safe than Zig, especially since you can use ReleaseSafe in Zig..
UB is does not automatically make things unsafe. You can have a compiler that implements safe defaults for most UB, and then it is not unsafe.
That's implementation defined behavior, not undefined behavior. Undefined behavior explicitly refers to something the compiler does not provide a definition for, including "safe defaults."
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#103Do they still use 0-terminated strings/char* as the main string type? Is the usage of single linked lists still prevalent as the main container type?
The C standard library provides no recognizable container types, so there's no "main" anything.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no array bounds checking is possible. This isn’t strictly true, a C implementation is allowed to associate memory-range (or more generally, pointer provenance) metadata with a pointer. The DeathStation 9000 features a conforming C implementation which is known to catch all array bounds violations. ;)
"The DeathStation 9000" The what now?
Google it.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no array bounds checking is possible. This isn’t strictly true, a C implementation is allowed to associate memory-range (or more generally, pointer provenance) metadata with a pointer. The DeathStation 9000 features a conforming C implementation which is known to catch all array bounds violations. ;)
Right. Also it might it sound like array-to-pointer decay is forced onto the programmer. Instead, you can take the address of an array just fine without letting it decay. The type then preserves the length.
Nice, when you know the length at compile time, which is rarely from my experience.
The holy grail is runtime access to the length, which means an array would have to be backed by something more elaborate.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#106One of my favorite books ever.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
The killer feature of RAII is when combined with exceptions. But sneaking in exceptions in an embedded C project isn't something I'd encourage or recommend. C++ imo doesn't offer anything compelling for the embedded usecase. Especially not considering all the footguns and politics it brings. You can of course be strict and diligent about it but if you are you are pretty much just writing C anyway. Better to do it exp…
There are a lot of large C++ shops that purposefully disable exceptions and yet still use RAII usefully. It's so useful that in many C codebases you see people using RAII. For example Gtk has g_autoptr and g_autofree. One of the most compelling things C++ offers to embedded use case is moving runtime initialization to compile-time initialization by liberally using constexpr functions. You literally ask the compiler t…
RAII is useful without exceptions yes. I guess it is the other way around. Exceptions are not useful without RAII (sorry not sorry most garbage collected languages ;)).
But without exceptions it is mostly syntactic sugar anyway.
If compile time initialization is the most compelling usecase I'll rest my case. Good feature, yes! Hardly worth switching language for.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#108Do they still use 0-terminated strings/char* as the main string type? Is the usage of single linked lists still prevalent as the main container type?
> Do they still use 0-terminated strings/char* as the main string type? Of course, it's still C. > Is the usage of single linked lists still prevalent as the main container type? As far as I can remember, the C standard library has never had any functions that used linked lists. Nor are there any container types, linked lists or otherwise, provided by C. So I'd say this is a question about how people teach and use C,…
Don't feed the trolls.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire I/O streams (where std::cout comes from) feature is garbage, if this was an independent development there is no way that WG21 would have taken it, the reason it's in C++ 98 and thus still here today is that it's Bjarne's baby. The reason not to take it is that it's contradictory to the "Don't use operator overloading for unrelated operations" core idea. Bjarne will insist that "actually" these operators so…
Perfectly iostreams happy user since 1993.
int a;
cin >> a;
Then the program goes berserk as soon as the first non-number is read out of standard input. All the other "cin >> integer" lines are immediately skipped.
Yes, I know about error checking, clearing error condition, discarding characters. But it's a whole lot of stuff you need to do after every single "cin>>" line. It makes the simplicity of cin not worth it.
Re: The C23 edition of Modern C
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd be surprised: Zig has one UB (Undefined Behaviour) that C doesn't have! In release fast mode, unsigned overflow/underflow is undefined in Zig whereas in C it wraps. :-) Of course C has many UBs that Zig doesn't have, so C is far less safe than Zig, especially since you can use ReleaseSafe in Zig..
UB is does not automatically make things unsafe. You can have a compiler that implements safe defaults for most UB, and then it is not unsafe.
[deleted]