C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] [isocpp-sg21] Telecon to review P2388R1 Minimum Contract Support: either Ignore or Check_and_abort

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:46:13 +0000
An attribute appertaining to a type does not actually modify that type. Like you said, it applies to the declarations using that type. We don't have a notion of making a new type by merely applying an attribute to an existing type.

The notion of "attribute appertaining to function type" has always been a curiosity, more as a specification device than a fundamental programming notion.

Even if one takes the view that contracts should be part of the type (which I don't recommend because that opens up a whole different kind of can of worms), the notion of "attributes appertaining to function type" doesn't create an actual conflict, because the position of those contract notations are exactly where they should be in that context.

Finally, for a well-formed program with well-defined behavior fed with the correct data, ignoring contracts (with diagnostics, if one wishes) would be a correct (if poor quality) implementation.

-- Gaby

-----Original Message-----
From: SG21 <sg21-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Jens Maurer via SG21
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 12:23 AM
To: sg21_at_[hidden]; Aaron Ballman <aaron_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>; WG14/WG21 liaison mailing list <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-sg21] [wg14/wg21 liaison] Telecon to review P2388R1 Minimum Contract Support: either Ignore or Check_and_abort

On 24/09/2021 08.55, Andrzej Krzemienski via SG21 wrote:
> Aaron Ballman wrote:
> There's a third concern in the same vicinity related to the use of
> [[]]. We've spent a decade teaching programmers that the positional
> placement of [[]] matters as to how it is interpreted by the compiler.
> void func(int i) [[attr]]; // attribute appertains to the function type
> void func(int i) [[contract:]]; // no impression that this impacts the
> type, but not certain either
> So if contracts don't behave like type attributes (which the standard
> doesn't currently make use of), it negates a lot of the educational
> effort on how to properly use attributes. Even though the standard
> doesn't use type attributes, users can use them with vendor specific
> attributes. For example, function type attributes are known to impact
> things like type checking; e.g., https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgodbolt.org%2Fz%2F3YzGb897f&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C46feac2cb5c2442934f008d97f2c2d14%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637680649997541717%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=URDYOUpFnd7APaEihqiyaPkaxBmBWkM7WGuBWw%2F%2F2Bg%3D&amp;reserved=0 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgodbolt.org%2Fz%2F3YzGb897f&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C46feac2cb5c2442934f008d97f2c2d14%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637680649997551714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=c4FnFKz2wUgEdaDkBs2cx6UxsRP%2BXSG9b%2FHGRul2y7k%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> Aaron Ballman also wrote:
> Speaking as not-your-liaison but as the person responsible for
> attribute implementations in a few C++ compilers, this particular
> concern is not my biggest concern with the syntax. I'm *way* more
> concerned about the fact that these look like attributes when they're
> not actually attributes. This attribute-like syntax, coupled with
> where you write contracts, makes it *look* like the user has written a
> type attribute when the semantics of the contracts behave more like a
> declaration attribute. This muddies the language too much for me to
> support. One of the big reasons we got the [[]] syntax for attributes
> in the first place was because of known problems with attribute
> appertainment "sliding" to whatever construct makes most sense based
> on the spelling of the attribute, and that's essentially all this
> syntax achieves. 
> I need some help understanding what is considered a proper usage of a "type attribute" in the context of function declaration.
> It is quite easy to see in variable declarations: if one declaration declares multiple variables, the type attribute would affect all the variables.
> But in case of a function declaration, there is only one function being declared at a time.


using F = int(int);

F f1, f2, f3;

int main()
  f1(5); // ok

An attribute appertaining to the function type would be declared like that:

using F = int(int) [[whatever]];

and indicate that the attribute applies to all three functions f1,f2,f3
declared with that type.

That's similar to an extended alignment on a class type, for example:
It applies to all objects of that class type.

> You gave an example with [[gnu::fastcall]], and here the situation is quite clear: it affects function type to the degree that I cannot cast it to a pointer that doesn't have [[gnu::fastcall]].
> But is this a determining factor? An attribute shall appertain to function type if it modifies the type of the function?

Yes, that was the original motivation here. If it just affects the particular
function, it should appertain to the declarator-id; if it affects the type, it
should appertain to the function type.

We have later established the policy that standard attributes, when ignored,
don't make a program ill-formed or semantically ill-behaved, but that policy
wasn't clear when attributes were first established (plus we have vendor
attributes that violate that, such as the mentioned gcc one).

Given that pre/postconditions are not intended to modify the function type
(although there might be some abstract viewpoint that does consider them
part of the type), pre/postconditions, when viewed as attributes, don't
belong where they're currently placed in the syntax.

A non-attribute-looking syntax would alleviate that concern.

SG21 mailing list
Subscription: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsg21&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C46feac2cb5c2442934f008d97f2c2d14%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637680649997551714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=ial8q7oMNB9KKSgWlyD4BrkouZsMvsnDLZqlB5DpcsM%3D&amp;reserved=0
Link to this post: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fsg21%2F2021%2F09%2F1275.php&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C46feac2cb5c2442934f008d97f2c2d14%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637680649997551714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=7p8YL9ecSydOPWIh2dTYz3OS0w41aeTUHVQxfnti0Ns%3D&amp;reserved=0

Received on 2021-09-24 05:47:42