README.Portability: Move to a new section and obsolete K+R portability issues.

* README.Portability: Move to a new section and obsolete K+R
	portability issues.

From-SVN: r65818
This commit is contained in:
Matt Kraai 2003-04-19 15:53:44 +00:00 committed by Matt Kraai
parent 070154442e
commit ced2ad7687
2 changed files with 218 additions and 203 deletions

View File

@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
2003-04-19 Matt Kraai <kraai@alumni.cmu.edu>
* README.Portability: Move to a new section and obsolete K+R
portability issues.
Sat Apr 19 14:56:17 CEST 2003 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
* rtlanal.c (subreg_offset_representable_p): Fix call of

View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
Copyright (C) 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Copyright (C) 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is intended to contain a few notes about writing C code
within GCC so that it compiles without error on the full range of
@ -15,42 +15,13 @@ probably what most people code to naturally. Obviously using
constructs introduced after that is not a good idea.
The first section of this file deals strictly with portability issues,
the second with common coding pitfalls.
the second with common coding pitfalls, and the third with obsolete
K+R portability issues.
Portability Issues
==================
Unary +
-------
K+R C compilers and preprocessors have no notion of unary '+'. Thus
the following code snippet contains 2 portability problems.
int x = +2; /* int x = 2; */
#if +1 /* #if 1 */
#endif
Pointers to void
----------------
K+R C compilers did not have a void pointer, and used char * as the
pointer to anything. The macro PTR is defined as either void * or
char * depending on whether you have a standards compliant compiler or
a K+R one. Thus
free ((void *) h->value.expansion);
should be written
free ((PTR) h->value.expansion);
Further, an initial investigation indicates that pointers to functions
returning void are okay. Thus the example given by "Calling functions
through pointers to functions" below appears not to cause a problem.
String literals
---------------
@ -61,14 +32,9 @@ const char string[] = ("A string");
This is unfortunate since this is what the GNU gettext macro N_
produces. You need to find a different way to code it.
K+R C did not allow concatenation of string literals like
"This is a " "single string literal".
Moreover, some compilers like MSVC++ have fairly low limits on the
maximum length of a string literal; 509 is the lowest we've come
across. You may need to break up a long printf statement into many
smaller ones.
Some compilers like MSVC++ have fairly low limits on the maximum
length of a string literal; 509 is the lowest we've come across. You
may need to break up a long printf statement into many smaller ones.
Empty macro arguments
@ -88,140 +54,6 @@ foo (bar, )
needs to be coded in some other way.
signed keyword
--------------
The signed keyword did not exist in K+R compilers; it was introduced
in ISO C89, so you cannot use it. In both K+R and standard C,
unqualified char and bitfields may be signed or unsigned. There is no
way to portably declare signed chars or signed bitfields.
All other arithmetic types are signed unless you use the 'unsigned'
qualifier. For instance, it is safe to write
short paramc;
instead of
signed short paramc;
If you have an algorithm that depends on signed char or signed
bitfields, you must find another way to write it before it can be
integrated into GCC.
Function prototypes
-------------------
You need to provide a function prototype for every function before you
use it, and functions must be defined K+R style. The function
prototype should use the PARAMS macro, which takes a single argument.
Therefore the parameter list must be enclosed in parentheses. For
example,
int myfunc PARAMS ((double, int *));
int
myfunc (var1, var2)
double var1;
int *var2;
{
...
}
This implies that if the function takes no arguments, it should be
declared and defined as follows:
int myfunc PARAMS ((void));
int
myfunc ()
{
...
}
You also need to use PARAMS when referring to function protypes in
other circumstances, for example see "Calling functions through
pointers to functions" below.
Variable-argument functions are best described by example:-
void cpp_ice PARAMS ((cpp_reader *, const char *msgid, ...));
void
cpp_ice VPARAMS ((cpp_reader *pfile, const char *msgid, ...))
{
VA_OPEN (ap, msgid);
VA_FIXEDARG (ap, cpp_reader *, pfile);
VA_FIXEDARG (ap, const char *, msgid);
...
VA_CLOSE (ap);
}
See ansidecl.h for the definitions of the above macros and more.
One aspect of using K+R style function declarations, is you cannot
have arguments whose types are char, short, or float, since without
prototypes (ie, K+R rules), these types are promoted to int, int, and
double respectively.
Calling functions through pointers to functions
-----------------------------------------------
K+R C compilers require parentheses around the dereferenced function
pointer expression in the call, whereas ISO C relaxes the syntax. For
example
typedef void (* cl_directive_handler) PARAMS ((cpp_reader *, const char *));
*p->handler (pfile, p->arg);
needs to become
(*p->handler) (pfile, p->arg);
Macros
------
The rules under K+R C and ISO C for achieving stringification and
token pasting are quite different. Therefore some macros have been
defined which will get it right depending upon the compiler.
CONCAT2(a,b) CONCAT3(a,b,c) and CONCAT4(a,b,c,d)
will paste the tokens passed as arguments. You must not leave any
space around the commas. Also,
STRINGX(x)
will stringify an argument; to get the same result on K+R and ISO
compilers x should not have spaces around it.
Passing structures by value
---------------------------
Avoid passing structures by value, either to or from functions. It
seems some K+R compilers handle this differently or not at all.
Enums
-----
In K+R C, you have to cast enum types to use them as integers, and
some compilers in particular give lots of warnings for using an enum
as an array index.
Bitfields
---------
See also "signed keyword" above. In K+R C only unsigned int bitfields
were defined (i.e. unsigned char, unsigned short, unsigned long.
Using plain int/short/long was not allowed).
free and realloc
----------------
@ -232,37 +64,16 @@ pointer. Thus if mem might be null, you need to write
free (mem);
Reserved Keywords
-----------------
K+R C has "entry" as a reserved keyword, so you should not use it for
your variable names.
Type promotions
---------------
K+R used unsigned-preserving rules for arithmetic expresssions, while
ISO uses value-preserving. This means an unsigned char compared to an
int is done as an unsigned comparison in K+R (since unsigned char
promotes to unsigned) while it is signed in ISO (since all of the
values in unsigned char fit in an int, it promotes to int).
Trigraphs
---------
You weren't going to use them anyway, but trigraphs were not defined
in K+R C, and some otherwise ISO C compliant compilers do not accept
them.
You weren't going to use them anyway, but some otherwise ISO C
compliant compilers do not accept trigraphs.
Suffixes on Integer Constants
-----------------------------
K+R C did not accept a 'u' suffix on integer constants. If you want
to declare a constant to be be unsigned, you must use an explicit
cast.
You should never use a 'l' suffix on integer constants ('L' is fine),
since it can easily be confused with the number '1'.
@ -300,22 +111,19 @@ long and int are not the same size.
Second, if you write a function definition with no return type at
all:
operate (a, b)
int a, b;
operate (int a, int b)
{
...
}
that function is expected to return int, *not* void. GCC will warn
about this. K+R C has no problem with 'void' as a return type, so you
need not worry about that.
about this.
Implicit function declarations always have return type int. So if you
correct the above definition to
void
operate (a, b)
int a, b;
operate (int a, int b)
...
but operate() is called above its definition, you will get an error
@ -389,3 +197,205 @@ o Passing incorrect types to fprintf and friends.
o Adding a function declaration for a module declared in another file to
a .c file instead of to a .h file.
K+R Portability Issues
======================
Unary +
-------
K+R C compilers and preprocessors have no notion of unary '+'. Thus
the following code snippet contained 2 portability problems.
int x = +2; /* int x = 2; */
#if +1 /* #if 1 */
#endif
Pointers to void
----------------
K+R C compilers did not have a void pointer, and used char * as the
pointer to anything. The macro PTR is defined as either void * or
char * depending on whether you have a standards compliant compiler or
a K+R one. Thus
free ((void *) h->value.expansion);
should have been written
free ((PTR) h->value.expansion);
Further, an initial investigation indicates that pointers to functions
returning void were okay. Thus the example given by "Calling
functions through pointers to functions" below appeared not to cause a
problem.
String literals
---------------
K+R C did not allow concatenation of string literals like
"This is a " "single string literal".
signed keyword
--------------
The signed keyword did not exist in K+R compilers; it was introduced
in ISO C89, so you could not use it. In both K+R and standard C,
unqualified char and bitfields may be signed or unsigned. There is no
way to portably declare signed chars or signed bitfields.
All other arithmetic types are signed unless you use the 'unsigned'
qualifier. For instance, it was safe to write
short paramc;
instead of
signed short paramc;
If you have an algorithm that depends on signed char or signed
bitfields, you had to find another way to write it before it could be
integrated into GCC.
Function prototypes
-------------------
You need to provide a function prototype for every function before you
use it, and functions had to be defined K+R style. The function
prototype should have used the PARAMS macro, which takes a single
argument. Therefore the parameter list had to be enclosed in
parentheses. For example,
int myfunc PARAMS ((double, int *));
int
myfunc (var1, var2)
double var1;
int *var2;
{
...
}
This implies that if the function takes no arguments, it had to be
declared and defined as follows:
int myfunc PARAMS ((void));
int
myfunc ()
{
...
}
You also had to use PARAMS when referring to function protypes in
other circumstances, for example see "Calling functions through
pointers to functions" below.
Variable-argument functions are best described by example:-
void cpp_ice PARAMS ((cpp_reader *, const char *msgid, ...));
void
cpp_ice VPARAMS ((cpp_reader *pfile, const char *msgid, ...))
{
VA_OPEN (ap, msgid);
VA_FIXEDARG (ap, cpp_reader *, pfile);
VA_FIXEDARG (ap, const char *, msgid);
...
VA_CLOSE (ap);
}
See ansidecl.h for the definitions of the above macros and more.
One aspect of using K+R style function declarations, is you could not
have arguments whose types are char, short, or float, since without
prototypes (ie, K+R rules), these types are promoted to int, int, and
double respectively.
Calling functions through pointers to functions
-----------------------------------------------
K+R C compilers require parentheses around the dereferenced function
pointer expression in the call, whereas ISO C relaxes the syntax. For
example
typedef void (* cl_directive_handler) PARAMS ((cpp_reader *, const char *));
*p->handler (pfile, p->arg);
had to become
(*p->handler) (pfile, p->arg);
Macros
------
The rules under K+R C and ISO C for achieving stringification and
token pasting are quite different. Therefore some macros have been
defined which will get it right depending upon the compiler.
CONCAT2(a,b) CONCAT3(a,b,c) and CONCAT4(a,b,c,d)
will paste the tokens passed as arguments. You must not leave any
space around the commas. Also,
STRINGX(x)
will stringify an argument; to get the same result on K+R and ISO
compilers x should not have spaces around it.
Passing structures by value
---------------------------
You had to avoid passing structures by value, either to or from
functions. It seems some K+R compilers handle this differently or not
at all.
Enums
-----
In K+R C, you had to cast enum types to use them as integers, and some
compilers in particular give lots of warnings for using an enum as an
array index.
Bitfields
---------
See also "signed keyword" above. In K+R C only unsigned int bitfields
were defined (i.e. unsigned char, unsigned short, unsigned long.
Using plain int/short/long was not allowed).
Reserved Keywords
-----------------
K+R C has "entry" as a reserved keyword, so you had to not use it for
your variable names.
Type promotions
---------------
K+R used unsigned-preserving rules for arithmetic expresssions, while
ISO uses value-preserving. This means an unsigned char compared to an
int is done as an unsigned comparison in K+R (since unsigned char
promotes to unsigned) while it is signed in ISO (since all of the
values in unsigned char fit in an int, it promotes to int).
Suffixes on Integer Constants
-----------------------------
K+R C did not accept a 'u' suffix on integer constants. If you wanted
to declare a constant to be be unsigned, you had to use an explicit
cast.