Lib0xc: A set of C standard library-adjacent APIs for safer systems programming

Post by uecker » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

anthk wrote: post #69

uecker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding on how standardization works. The C standard committee has long recognized the need for better safety and carefully made it possible so that C could be implemented safely. But the process is that vendors implement something and then come together during standardization so that it is compatible, not that the standardization is the government that prescribes top-d…

Stop mixing C and C++, tons of people on Unix still hate C++ (Motif a bit less) for being un-Unixy and megacomplex, even more today. Die had Unix and C people created Plan9 and now Go, which is maybe the other succesor to C before Inferno and Limbo, where programming it's more simpler than the whole C and POSIX clusterfux (even Plan9 and 9front itself can be called a "Unix 2.0"). C++ is something else. Heck, it's oft…

Post by aDyslecticCrow » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

atilimcetin wrote: post #4

The title looks very promising. I’ve added this library to my to-do list to take a deeper look at it. Using this standart library within restricted safe subset of C++ can be a strong opponent for Zig (at least for myself).

Post by EPWN3D » Sat, May 02, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

uecker wrote: post #39

EPWN3D wrote: post #11

Author here, I posted this in Show HN but someone clearly beat me to it. So I'll repost my blurb from there. Various patterns for safer C programming have been cargo-culting around the industry for decades. Because the language evolves intentionally slowly, these patterns rarely get folded into the language as first-class constructs and are passed down through the generations in a sort of oral tradition of programmin…

Thanks! Two notes: GCC has its "access" attributes which can give you similar bounds safety as clang. Please see also my experimental library. https://codeberg.org/uecker/noplate/ While I do not had enough time to polish it yet, I think it provides some very nice interfaces with improve type and bounds safety, and are also rather convenient. Also I wonder what parts are redundant if you have FORTIFY_SOURCE ? (And tha…

Post by EPWN3D » Sat, May 02, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

kitd wrote: post #51

EPWN3D wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think defer has been included in the next round of working group proposals for C2y, but I don't think Apple's clang has it. Maybe it's there as a language extension and I just didn't see it. What lib0xc has is some cleanup attributes that you can apply to variables to e.g. automatically free a heap allocation or close a file descriptor, at end of scope. Personally, I like variable annotations much more than defer f…

> I've also found that using those attributes inherently pushes your code to make ownership more explicit. I personally stopped being terrified of double-pointers and started using them for ownership transfers, which eliminates a large class of bugs. This is very interesting. Do you have a practical example?

Post by xigoi » Sat, May 02, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #74

Panzerschrek wrote: post #48

It's just an excuse not to use safe languages. And adopting it isn't that easy - one need to learn how the new library works or even rewrite old working and tested code with it.

If i cannot use GCC i cannot compile to half the embedded platforms i work with on a daily basis. C remains widespread for unique reasons that not many other languages actually quite grasp. Using C for a destop application should probably stop being done in light of many more languages more suited for the domain. But there is no replacement for C in hard embedded systems. And there is no replacement for C in the mass…