Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Activity for alx
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #286627 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
Assert that some code is not present in the final binary, at compile or link time. I'd like to assert that some code can be optimized out, and is not present in the final binary object. ```c #define CONSTANT 0 #if (!CONSTANT) [[landmineA]] #endif static int foo(void); void bar(void) { if (CONSTANT) { foo(); } } static int foo(void) { if (... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: links |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: PGP sign emails sent with git-send-email(1) It can't be done with `git-send-email`(1), but there's a tool that integrates with it, and is very simple to use: `patatt`(1). Install the tool: ```sh $ sudo apt-get install patatt ``` And then for each repo in which you want to sign patches, run: ```sh $ cd /some/git/repo/ $ patatt ins... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286593 |
Yes, that's by far the simplest one.
I was wondering if there was one that was more useful, in terms of type-generic programming, so that it would discard the `const` qualifier from any type.
`_Generic` would help, but it's still limited to the types you specify. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286588 |
Considering that I'm asking this for use in a public mailing list, option 1 is not possible, option 2 defeats the simplicity and versatility of email patches, so option 3 remains.
In fact, yes, a web of trust is what I was looking for (accept more or less blindly patches from specific persons, the... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286575 |
Agree. I don't even remember why that solution came through my mind. I didn't ask to close the question, just for curiosity of the answers :) (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: experimental data |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: add link to NGINX Unit |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: array of pointers really uses a lot more space |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286575 |
Ahh, you're right. Just some confusion of mine then. For some reason I thought I needed to discard the const in some code, but I don't need to. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
array of arrays vs array of pointers to store array of string literals Let's consider the following code: ```c const char a[][4] = {"aa", "aaa"}; const char b[] = {"bb", "bbb"}; const char const c[] = {"cc", "ccc"}; ``` For shared libraries, both `b` and `c` arrays require the array of pointers to be generated at runtime, which implies performance costs. Se... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286575 |
But I'm discarding it from `r->s`, which is `const char *`. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286575 |
Post edited: __auto_type |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286575 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286575 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
How to write a macro that discards the const qualifier, for any type? How to write a macro that discards the const qualifier, for any type? I hope some combination of `typeof` and a cast will do, but haven't found the combination. I tried this, without luck: ```c #define discardconst(x) ((typeof(x + 0)) (x)) struct t { char s; }; char foo(const... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286573 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286573 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
PGP sign emails sent with git-send-email(1) How can we use git-send-email(1) to sign patches (emails) with the gpg(1) keyring? I've heard it can be done, but couldn't find anything in the git-send-email(1) documentation nor in a web search. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286302 |
Hmm, interesting. I'll copy here a link to the c99(1) specification for completeness: <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html>.
My question was about portability to Unix systems, including systems about which I don't know much, such as Solaris or HPUX for example. If... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286302 |
Post edited: tfix |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286302 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286302 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286302 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
Is `-isystem` a POSIX cc option? Is `-isystem/path/to/sys/includes` a standard compiler option, or is it a compiler extension implemented by gcc, clang, and maybe other compilers? Can I rely on its availability? I couldn't find the POSIX specification for cc(1). (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285974 |
Might be, yes. I usually return. But I was reviewing some existing code that used that scheme. But I tend to agree :) (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285972 |
Post edited: ffix |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285946 |
Post edited: ffix |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285974 |
@#8176 In this case, `noreturn` doesn't help the compiler optimize, because it can't optimize (and in fact it would be wrong to optimize, since `pthread_create(3)` expects a function that actually returns, and providing something different (`void`) might be UB (but it happens to be compatible by the ... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285974 |
Calling `pthread_exit(3)` instead of returning from the callback is the same as calling `exit(3)` instead of returning from `main()`. It's not like you're killing it with a signal or anything like that. It handles everything gracefully and acts as if it returned: _"The pthread_exit() function term... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285972 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285972 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285972 | Initial revision | — | about 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
noreturn function with non-void return type Is it legal ISO C to declare a function as `noreturn` with a non-`void` return type (but of course not actually returning)? As far as I can read from the standard, it seems legal. Example: ``` c noreturn void foo(void x) { pthreadexit(x); } ``` ISO C (N2731, C2x) says: > 6.7... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285946 |
Post edited: show len usage |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285946 |
Post edited: Add usage |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285946 |
Of course, if one has portability issues, it can just `#define _Nonnull` to nothing for some compilers that lack support (right now only Clang supports it, AFAIK). Or simply manually remove the text. But for this showcase implementation, I'd like to be as explicit as possible, especially in the int... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #285946 |
Post edited: Symmetry |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285946 |
I want `_Nonnull` in the standard (I'm preparing a draft, but I'm going slow on that; want it to be perfect), `static` then becomes irrelevant/obsolete. I'd like `[_Nonnull 3]` to mean `[static 3]`, `*_Nonnull` / `[_Nonnull]` to mean `[static 0]` and `[3]` to mean maybe `[static 3]` but maybe `NULL`... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |