Re: Bounds checking, Optimization techniques and undefined behavior

On 2019-05-08, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> [I'm looking at C11 and don't see where it says you can't cast away
> const. What am I missing? I agree any approach here is ugly and we're
> near the limits of what you can say in C. -John]


By the way, on a tangent related to this topic, I use the following
definitions in code that compiles both as C and C++:


#ifdef __cplusplus
#define strip_qual(TYPE, EXPR) (const_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#define convert(TYPE, EXPR) (static_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#define coerce(TYPE, EXPR) (reinterpret_cast<TYPE>(EXPR))
#else
#define strip_qual(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
#define convert(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
#define coerce(TYPE, EXPR) ((TYPE) (EXPR))
#endif


When compiling as C++, I get diagnostics from the more nuanced cast
operators, which reduce to just regular C casts when compiling as C.


For instance, casting away const requires strip_qual(type, val).


That's just one way we can get the benefits of some C++ safety
without leaving C. Another example is the stronger type safety
of enumerations, and the rules around void * conversions.


--
TXR Programming Lanuage: http://nongnu.org/txr
Music DIY Mailing List: http://www.kylheku.com/diy
ADA MP-1 Mailing List: http://www.kylheku.com/mp1
[Wow, that's ugly. -John]

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.