Hi Joseph,
I'd like to ping about this thread.
Cheers,
Alex
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 12:44:29PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:19:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Joseph,
> > >
> > > On
Hi Joseph,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:19:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:03:00PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I'm proposing it
Am Montag, dem 18.08.2025 um 23:19 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:03:00PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I'm proposing it as a GNU ex
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:03:00PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm proposing it as a GNU extension, which means we don't even need
> > > to care about what ISO C says abo
Hi Joseph,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:03:00PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > And I'm proposing it as a GNU extension, which means we don't even need
> > to care about what ISO C says about [n]. We, as a quality
> > implementation, treat it with s
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> And I'm proposing it as a GNU extension, which means we don't even need
> to care about what ISO C says about [n]. We, as a quality
> implementation, treat it with stronger semantics, which this patch uses.
As a GNU extension, it's also necessary t
Hi Joseph,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 06:44:07PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> We'd need standard wording that's gone through several rounds of review in
> WG14 before there's a reasonable basis for reviewing such a patch, given
> how it's based on a very different conceptual model to how array
> p
We'd need standard wording that's gone through several rounds of review in
WG14 before there's a reasonable basis for reviewing such a patch, given
how it's based on a very different conceptual model to how array
parameters are currently handled in the C standard. (And as noted on the
reflecto
Hi!
Here's a patch co-authored by Martin and I. It adds support for array
parameters in _Countof, which will enable writing safer code that only
specifies array bounds in function calls when strictly necessary,
reducing the chances for mistakes.
Here's an example program that never specifies bou
