Hi folks,

I'd like to resolve this issue. We don't currently seem to have SG12
consensus on the resolution. Would EWG discuss this specific issue, or can
we resolve SG12 concerns on this mailing list?

Thanks,

JF

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:24 PM JF Bastien <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:21 PM Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - That is, formalize it as “function types carry a calling
>> convention; it is implementation-defined whether the current language
>> linkage changes that convention; here is how different calling conventions
>> affect the language”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is close to what MSVC has been doing for its other calling
>> conventions (not “C” though).
>>
>> Calling conventions are a reality that is unteanable to ignore…
>>
>
> Right! I remember that you have a few calling conventions. Googling finds:
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/calling-conventions?view=vs-2019
>
> I guess we need a paper exploring this further. It would be helpful to get
> SG12’s input before writing a paper. What would you recommend as an
> approach?
>
>
> -- Gaby
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* SG12 <sg12-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *JF Bastien
>> via SG12
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020 4:11 PM
>> *To:* sg12_at_[hidden]
>> *Cc:* JF Bastien <cxx_at_[hidden]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [SG12] EWG Requests feedback/suggestions on Core Issue
>> 1555
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:18 AM David Vandevoorde via SG12 <
>> sg12_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2020, 09:57 David Vandevoorde, <daveed_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2020, at 4:00 AM, Richard Smith via SG12 <
>> sg12_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [ About language linkage being part of function types…]
>>
>> I hope someone who maintains an implementation for such a target will
>> speak up. (I think someone did when this was last asked, though, so I don't
>> think this is a theoretical or legacy concern. I'd be very happy to be
>> wrong about that.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Our front end can be configured in this respect:
>>
>> - Whether C and C++ language linkage function types are distinct
>>
>> - If they are not distinct, whether they can be implicitly converted
>> from one to another
>>
>> (and some added configurability to decide whether those implicit
>> conversions are
>>
>> enabled by default or require a command-line option)
>>
>>
>>
>> For those customers who have shared they configurations with us, most
>> appear to keep the types distinct but allow implicit conversions between
>> them. So the following example is accepted:
>>
>>
>>
>> $ cat -> r.cpp
>>
>> extern "C" typedef int F(void);
>>
>> extern "C++" typedef int FPP(void);
>>
>>
>>
>> constexpr int g(F) { return 1; }
>>
>> constexpr int g(FPP) { return 2; };
>>
>>
>>
>> F f;
>>
>> FPP fpp;
>>
>> F *pf = fpp;
>>
>>
>>
>> static_assert(g(f) == 1);
>>
>> static_assert(g(fpp) == 2);
>>
>> $ ./cfe --c++20 r.cpp
>>
>> $
>>
>>
>>
>> (The “major” implementations would complain g has a duplicate definition.)
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if we want to make all known implementations conforming, we would
>> need to make both (1) and (2) conditionally supported. Right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably. That said, none of the configuration files I had access to
>> made types distinct and disallowed conversions. I.e., either language
>> linkage did not affect function types, or they did but you could convert
>> pointers to C-functions to pointers to C++-functions (and v.v.; suggesting
>> that it’s only a type system feature, not a calling convention feature).
>> (But to be sure, the configurations I checked do not represent all our
>> customers.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Does the implicit conversion create a thunk?
>>
>>
>>
>> I was talking to a coworker about this issue, and he agrees with
>> Richard's analysis, saying:
>>
>> - If the language calling conventions are actually different, the
>> function types must be different, wrongly-matched calls must have UB, and
>> implicit conversion really ought to be disallowed.
>> - If the conventions are never permitted to be different, there is no
>> good reason not to unify the types everywhere.
>> - If the conventions are permitted to be different, the types can
>> either be kept formally different everywhere or be allowed to be unified as
>> an implementation decision.
>> - If the committee chooses to unify the types everywhere, some
>> implementors will be forced to either ignore it or break ABI and
>> (potentially) source compatibility. I assume they will all choose to
>> ignore it.
>> - If the committee chooses to make the types different everywhere,
>> some implementors will be forced to either ignore it or break both source
>> compatibility and ABI. I assume they will all choose to ignore it, just as
>> they have for the last 25 years.
>> - If the committee chooses to make it implementation-defined, they
>> will bless the status quo and formalize language divergence on different
>> targets.
>> - If the committee tries to thread the needle and make the types
>> different but allow implementations to make the types implicitly
>> interconvertible, they will be ignored *and* formalize language divergence
>> on different targets.
>>
>> I would strongly encourage making it implementation-defined with an eye
>> towards formalizing the treatment of calling conventions in the language.
>> That is, formalize it as “function types carry a calling convention; it
>> is implementation-defined whether the current language linkage changes that
>> convention; here is how different calling conventions affect the language”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd be less happy with that than with making only one of the two options
>> conditionally-supported, but maybe it's the right choice, given that
>> changing only (2) would require an ABI break for major implementations to
>> conform, and changing only (1) would be a source-level break for Daveed's
>> customers described above -- that is, for the people who were trying to
>> follow our rules as best as they could even though their C and C++
>> functions had the same calling convention.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Also, it sounds like there are not just one or two targets like this,
>> given Hubert's report and Daveed's multiple customers. I'm guessing the
>> latter implementations are things like processor-specific compilers in the
>> embedded space or similar, which I think generally have less representation
>> on the committee.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we have "Recommended behavior" as a tool, we could make (1)
>> conditionally supported, with a recommendation that C language linkage
>> result in the same type as C++ language linkage, and make (2) conditionally
>> supported, with a recommendation to allow conversion if the calling
>> convention would be the same (for those that didn't follow our first
>> recommendation).
>>
>>
>>
>> That sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daveed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG12 mailing list
>> SG12_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg12
>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsg12&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7Cefbfa1b81ccd4f9bf7e308d7f85c300f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637250947163742117&sdata=rYezyzZxbIYsThh6lOZieSBn0ltmJ7pBweufAjQZofk%3D&reserved=0>
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/sg12/2020/05/0919.php
>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fsg12%2F2020%2F05%2F0919.php&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7Cefbfa1b81ccd4f9bf7e308d7f85c300f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637250947163742117&sdata=BUqKxDxnH7Hrg6EO30FMqzqsG%2B0Skp%2FaiLWOqNB7%2FD4%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>