Hi Joseph, On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 06:44:07PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > We'd need standard wording that's gone through several rounds of review in > WG14 before there's a reasonable basis for reviewing such a patch, given > how it's based on a very different conceptual model to how array > parameters are currently handled in the C standard.
The behavior in this implementation is such that the count is taken from the parameter in the function declarator in which it appears. The other function declarators are entirely ignored. It doesn't need to care about composite types at all. And I'm proposing it as a GNU extension, which means we don't even need to care about what ISO C says about [n]. We, as a quality implementation, treat it with stronger semantics, which this patch uses. I think we don't need the standard for this. > (And as noted on the > reflector, it would seem desirable to get to a conclusion on revisions of > N2906 and N3605 before considering such a proposal, rather than chaining > new proposals on other proposals still needing significant work.) Those would affect a future implicit deduction of the array length with default arguments. That would need to be careful about composite type, because the caller sees the composite type. However, the function declarator doesn't care about other compatible declarators. It should not affect this feature. I think this is ready for review already. (Well, I need to send v2 with some fix, but other than that, it's good, IMO.) Have a lovely night! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
