This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C/C++ PATCH to add __typeof_noqual (PR c/65455, c/39985)


On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:

> > There's the usual question of what should be done with arrays
> > of qualified types (where C does not consider such an array type to be
> > qualified, but C++ considers it to have the same qualifiers as the element
> > type).  There's also the matter of qualifiers used internally by GCC to
> > represent const and noreturn functions.
> 
> What about _Atomic?  Should it also be removed?  If yes, how would

I think so.  I'd think of this as being something like type as an rvalue, 
which is the unqualified, non-atomic version of the type.  Which is 
appropriate for various uses of type-generic macros where you declare 
temporary variables, and there is no need for those temporaries to be 
volatile, atomic, etc., even if the inputs or outputs for the macro are.

> one then generically define a cv-unqualified object of an atomic
> type when given a const- or volatile-qualified atomic type or object?

I'm doubtful of the utility of that.

> Yes, syntactically restrict is (kind of like) a qualifier, but
> semantically it's nothing like it (the standard says it's more
> akin to a storage specifier).  Most (but not all) of the essential

Storage class specifiers aren't part of the type system at all.  All the 
usual rules for qualified types apply to restrict (whereas they *don't* 
necessarily apply to _Atomic).

> In my mind, all this speaks in favor of introducing simpler building
> blocks.  From its name alone, the expected effects of a __remove_const
> or __remove_atomic built-in (not to mention their utility) are far
> clearer than those of __typeof_noqual__.

If you *only* have blocks like that, you can't then write code that also 
removes whatever qualifiers might be added in future - you keep needing to 
update the generic code for future qualifiers.  For C90 you'd have had 
__remove_const and __remove_volatile, but then would have needed to update 
again for restrict, again after that for address spaces, and again after 
that for _Atomic.

I.e., just having blocks to remove qualifiers of kind X is not sufficient 
without "remove all qualifiers (possibly except these kinds)" as well.  I 
suppose you could have __remove_quals (const volatile _Atomic, expr) and 
__remove_quals_except (_Atomic, expr) or similar (with some keyword that 
goes in there to mean "any address space").

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]