From: Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct?
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:06:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJSxfmJN1LQHUdkCV9mD7_H0k=K6u_quaEPe0_c44tmocw7guA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190402022256.GA36424@wopr>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2781 bytes --]
what I have in /sys/src/cmd/cc here is identical to what's on 9p.io.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:23 PM Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:20:43PM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 08:26:30PM -0400, Jeremy O'Brien wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 11:33, Kyohei Kadota wrote:
> > > > > Hi, 9fans. I use 9legacy.
> > > > >
> > > > > About below program, I expected that flags field will initialize to
> > > > > zero but the value of flags was a garbage, ex, "f8f7".
> > > > > Is this expected?
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > struct option {
> > > > > int n;
> > > > > char *s;
> > > > > int flags;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > int
> > > > > main(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct option opt = {1, "test"};
> > > > > printf("%d %s %x\n", opt.n, opt.s, opt.flags);
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > According to C99: "If an object that has automatic storage duration
> is
> > > not initialized explicitly, its value is indeterminate."
> > > >
> > > > Stack variable == automatic storage duration. This appears to be
> correct
> > > behavior to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can anyone provide the patches 9legacy uses to implement C99
> compliance?
> >
> >
> > There were actually quite a few of them, mostly done by Geoff Collyer.
> The
> > compiler sources list contains a list of desiderata in a file called
> `c99`;
> > of course, the plan9 compilers aren't completely compliant (they weren't
> > trying to be). Incidentally this file has been carried forward into, for
> > example, /sys/src/cmd/cc/c99 in the 9front distribution (and other plan9
> > derivatives).
> >
> > In the present case, this appears to be a compiler bug. The
> aforementioned
> > reference to n1548 sec 6.7.9 para 10 is incorrect in that there _is_ an
> > explicit initializer here. The relevant text in the standard is sec 6.7.9
> > pp 16-21, which specifies that in the event that an explicit initializer
> > does not completely cover (in a topological sense) the thing it is
> > initializing, then the elements not covered shall be initialized as if
> they
> > had _static_ storage duration; that is, they should be zeroed.
> >
> > Now as I said, the Plan 9 C compilers aren't explicit C99 compliant. But
> > given that the `c99` file describes things related to initializer lists
> as
> > being unneeded because they were already implemented, one may assume it
> was
> > believed that this was covered by c99 behavior. It isn't.
> >
> > - Dan C.
>
> So, no?
>
> khm
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3803 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-02 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-01 15:32 [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct? Kyohei Kadota
2019-04-01 23:49 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2019-04-02 14:44 ` Kyohei Kadota
2019-04-02 0:26 ` Jeremy O'Brien
2019-04-02 0:35 ` Charles Forsyth
2019-04-02 0:35 ` [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct? Kurt H Maier
2019-04-02 1:20 ` Dan Cross
2019-04-02 2:22 ` Kurt H Maier
2019-04-02 3:06 ` Skip Tavakkolian [this message]
2019-04-02 8:02 ` David du Colombier
2019-04-02 10:38 ` Charles Forsyth
2019-04-02 16:25 ` Anthony Martin
2019-04-02 16:37 ` Charles Forsyth
2019-04-02 14:52 ` [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct? Kyohei Kadota
2019-04-02 15:02 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2019-04-02 15:14 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2019-04-02 16:18 ` Devon H. O'Dell
2019-04-02 19:57 ` Charles Forsyth
2019-04-02 15:04 ` Charles Forsyth
2019-04-02 15:16 ` Kyohei Kadota
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJSxfmJN1LQHUdkCV9mD7_H0k=K6u_quaEPe0_c44tmocw7guA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).