Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:29:44 +0800
On Jan 22, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 22 January 2014 03:40, David Krauss <david_work_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 1. Violation of “shall” is diagnosable unless otherwise specified (1.4/1).
>>> Ok. I don't think this is obviously clear.
>> No? It’s the usual blanket rule. Not clear if that’s how compliance works, or if it applies in this instance?
>
> Both.
Well, 1.4/1 covers it pretty succinctly. Every “shall” is a diagnosable rule unless explicitly modified by a weaker requirement. If memory serves, the library has a blanket rule that requirements of function parameters are not diagnosable. Also for what it’s worth, I remember that C excuses the implementation from diagnosing runtime conditions in general. But C++ takes the strategy of explicitly classifying each runtime rule as UB.
There’s nothing to weaken the diagnostic requirements on use of main. The implementations which don't are simply nonconforming.
>> Well, a definition is also a use, in the sense that the name is looked up. Also the linkage is implementation-defined, while if no aspect could ever be inspected, it might as well be merely implementation-specific.
>> I don’t see what utility other uses could have though, given that ODR-use isn’t allowed.
>
> I don't think decltype(main()) is an odr-use, or sizeof(decltype(main)).
True, I just don’t see what utility those would be. You might mean sizeof(decltype(&main)) in the latter case.
I think the most common non-ODR use of main would be defining it after a forward declaration, and now Steven Clamage has clarified that should be ill-formed. The broader definition of “use” as being a result of name lookup without reference to ODR looks correct now.
>> Eh… each implementation is ultimately written for the satisfaction of its own customers, and there are enough folks who like to recurse main.
>
> Really?
It’s just surprising. It’s legal in C and may be convenient for small programs, such as classroom examples.
>> I don’t recall ever seeing an implementation not to allow safe recursion of main. Often the C runtime
>
> gcc doesn't allow it if given -pedantic.
I was only speaking of generated executable and runtime library layout.
> On 22 January 2014 03:40, David Krauss <david_work_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 1. Violation of “shall” is diagnosable unless otherwise specified (1.4/1).
>>> Ok. I don't think this is obviously clear.
>> No? It’s the usual blanket rule. Not clear if that’s how compliance works, or if it applies in this instance?
>
> Both.
Well, 1.4/1 covers it pretty succinctly. Every “shall” is a diagnosable rule unless explicitly modified by a weaker requirement. If memory serves, the library has a blanket rule that requirements of function parameters are not diagnosable. Also for what it’s worth, I remember that C excuses the implementation from diagnosing runtime conditions in general. But C++ takes the strategy of explicitly classifying each runtime rule as UB.
There’s nothing to weaken the diagnostic requirements on use of main. The implementations which don't are simply nonconforming.
>> Well, a definition is also a use, in the sense that the name is looked up. Also the linkage is implementation-defined, while if no aspect could ever be inspected, it might as well be merely implementation-specific.
>> I don’t see what utility other uses could have though, given that ODR-use isn’t allowed.
>
> I don't think decltype(main()) is an odr-use, or sizeof(decltype(main)).
True, I just don’t see what utility those would be. You might mean sizeof(decltype(&main)) in the latter case.
I think the most common non-ODR use of main would be defining it after a forward declaration, and now Steven Clamage has clarified that should be ill-formed. The broader definition of “use” as being a result of name lookup without reference to ODR looks correct now.
>> Eh… each implementation is ultimately written for the satisfaction of its own customers, and there are enough folks who like to recurse main.
>
> Really?
It’s just surprising. It’s legal in C and may be convenient for small programs, such as classroom examples.
>> I don’t recall ever seeing an implementation not to allow safe recursion of main. Often the C runtime
>
> gcc doesn't allow it if given -pedantic.
I was only speaking of generated executable and runtime library layout.
Received on 2014-01-22 12:26:42