Looking at mutter source code and evince source code, both still use C89 style of declaring all variables at the very beginning of the function, instead of where it is first used (limited scope is good). Why don't they use C99? GNOME 3 was launch recently and mutter is quite new, so that could have been a good opportunity to switch, if the reason was compatibility with old code style.
Does that mean that contributing code to GNOME needs to be written in C89?
The rationale can be linked to the same rationale behind Glib and GTK+:
No C99 comments or declarations.
Rationale: we expect GLib and GTK+ to
be buildable on various compilers and
C99 support is still not yet
widespread.
Source: http://live.gnome.org/GTK+/BestPractices
Speaking of scope, I guess you can still do this:
if (condition)
{
int temporary = expression();
trigger_side_effect(temporary);
}
In other words, each actual brace-enclosed scope can contain new variable declarations, even in C89. Many people seem surprised by this; there's no difference from this perspective between a function's top-level scope and any other scope contained therein. Variables will be visible in all scopes descending from the one that declared them.
Note that I don't know if this is supported by the GNOME style guide, but it's at least supported by C89, and a recommended technique (by me) to keep things as local as possible.
Many people consider declaring variables all over the place, as opposed to at the beginning of the block, bad style. It makes it mildly more work to look for declarations, and makes it so you have to inspect the whole function to find them all. Also, for whatever reason, declarations after statements were one of the last C99 features GCC implemented, so for a long time, it was a major compatibility consideration.
Related
From Programming Language Pragmatics by Michael Scott
Modern versions of C and C++ include a namespace mechanism
that provides module-like data hiding
Does C have namespaces similar to C++?
Are the "identifier name spaces" mentioned in C in a Nutshell the "namespaces" mentioned in Scott's book, and similar to namespaces in C++?
Thanks.
No, C does not have a namespace mechanism whereby you can provide “module-like data hiding”.
book quality
I do not know anything about the book you cited, but the word “namespaces” is one of those that gets overloaded to a lot of different meanings, just like “window”. (I question the validity of anything the author says for getting such a major point about one of the world’s oldest and most widespread computer languages so brazenly wrong.)
name spaces in C
“Name spaces” in C are a completely different mechanism, working for a completely different purpose. These are the name spaces discussed in “C in a Nutshell”. The words mean something different than C++ namespaces. Since David Rankin bothered to lookup chapter and section referencing the C11 Standard, these are the name spaces used in C:
label names
struct/union/enum tags
struct/union members
everything else (including enum values)
a quick blurb about scope
Keep in mind that this says nothing about scope, which is a separate mechanism. For example, a global variable and a variable local to a function may have the same name; nevertheless they share the same name space. The difference is that the global’s visibility is obscured by the local variable.
value of namespaces in C++
It is still unclear whether namespaces were a very useful extension to C++, and the argument as to its righteousness continues. The C crowd (mostly) agrees that the headache that adding namespaces would involve doesn’t justify the ends. I couldn’t find anything particularly useful on the interwebs right off the top of my keyboard, except for a couple of bland blurbs about emulating them using structs or (even worse) using macro abuse. If you really want to dig, you could probably find some useful discussions archived on the comp.lang.c newsgroup.
No, C has nothing like C++ namespaces. Most people have to fake what C++ does using a kind of underscore notation at best. This is at least what I do instead of trying to pack things into structs. Your IDE will still help with code assists, you just have to get used to using the underscore instead of a . for everything
C++
MyNamespace::MyObject.myMethodOrVar ...
Ends up looking like this in C
MyNamespace_MyObject_myMethodOrVar
May not be as smooth as C++ or Java, but it works and still helps avoid name collision. It's just a pain in the ass.
And yes, this doesn't give you syntactic devices like use. It is what it is I'm afraid.
The other day I was converting a program written with C99 standard into C11. Basically the motive was to use the code with MSVC but It was written in Linux and was mostly compiled with default GCC behaviour. During the code conversion, I found out that you can not decalre variables of a function after any statement i.e. you must declare them at the top of the function.
But my question is that wouldn't it be against the efficient programming rule that variables should be declared near their use so that it maximizes the cache hits? For example, In a large function of say 200 LOC, I want to use some big static look up array at nearly the end of the function. Wouldn't declaring and initializing it just before the usage cause more cache hits? or am I simple missing some basic point of C11 C language standard?
You seem to have some confusion for which version of the standard you are compiling your program. AFAIK, MSVC doesn't support any of the more recent C standards.
But to come to the core of your question, no this is not an efficiency issue. The compiler is allowed to reorder statements to its liking, as long as the observable behavior of the program doesn't change. Thus a modern compiler will always touch a new variable the latest possible before its first use.
Where the variable declaration appears has no effect on cache behavior. Just having a declaration doesn't touch memory.
You may need to separate out initialization into a separate assignment, however, in order to make sure you don't have an initializer causing a memory access at (near) the beginning of the function.
I'm new to Linux kernel development.
One thing that bothers me is a way a variables are declared and initialized.
I'm under impression that code uses variable declaration placement rules for C89/ANSI C (variables are declared at the beginning of block), while C99 relaxes the rule.
My background is C++ and there many advises from "very clever people" to declare variable as locally as possible - better declare and initialize in the same instruction:
Google C++ Style Guide
C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices - item 18
A good discussion about it here.
What is the accepted way to initialize variables in Linux kernel?
I couldn't find a relevant passage in the Linux kernel coding style. So, follow the convention used in existing code -- declare variables at beginning of block -- or run the risk of your code seeming out-of-place.
Reasons why variables at beginning of block is a Good Thing:
the target architecture may not have a C99 compiler
... can't think of more reasons
You should always try to declare variables as locally as possible. If you're using C++ or C99, that would usually be right before the first use.
In older C, doing that doesn't fall under "possible", and there the place to declare those variables would usually be the beginning of the current block.
(I say 'usually' because of some cases with functions and loops where it's better to make them a bit more global...)
In most normal cases, declare them in the beginning of the function where you are using them. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
if your function is short enough, the deceleration is far away from the first use anyway. If your function is longer then that - it's a good sign your function is too long.
The reason many C++ based coding standards recommend declaring close to use is that C++ data types can be much "fatter" (e.g. thing of class with multiple inheritances etc.) and so take up a lot more space. If you define such an instance at the beginning of a function but use it only much later (and maybe not at all) you are wasting a lot of RAM. This tends to be much less of an issue in C with it's native type only data types.
There is an oblique reference in the Coding Style document. It says:
Another measure of the function is the number of local variables. They
shouldn't exceed 5-10, or you're doing something wrong. Re-think the
function, and split it into smaller pieces. A human brain can
generally easily keep track of about 7 different things, anything more
and it gets confused. You know you're brilliant, but maybe you'd like
to understand what you did 2 weeks from now.
So while C99 style in-place initialisers are handy in certain cases the first thing you should probably be asking yourself is why it's hard to have them all at the top of the function. This doesn't prevent you from declaring stuff inside block markers, for example for in-loop calculations.
In older C it is possible to declare them locally by creating a block inside the function. Blocks can be added even without ifs/for/while:
int foo(void)
{
int a;
int b;
....
a = 5 + b;
{
int c;
....
}
}
Although it doesn't look very neat, it still is possible, even in older C.
I can't speak to why they have done things one way in the Linux kernel, but in the systems we develop, we tend to not use C99-specific features in the core code. Individual applications tend to have stuff written for C99, because they will typically be deployed to one known platform, and the gcc C99 implementation is known good.
But the core code has to be deployable on whatever platform the customer demands (within reason). We have supplied systems on AIX, Solaris, Informix, Linux, Tru-64, OpenVMS(!) and the presence of C99 compliant compilers isn't always guaranteed.
The Linux kernel needs to be substantially more portable again - and particularly down to small footprint embedded systems. I guess the feature just isn't important enough to override these sorts of considerations.
From my course instructor, he has repeatedly emphasized and asked us not to use the "inline" keyword for functions. He says it is not "portable" across compilers and is not "standard". Considering this, are there any "standard" alternatives that allow for "inline expansion"?
Your course instructor is wrong. It is standard. It's actually in the current standard, right there in section 6.7.4 Function specifiers (C99). The fact that it's a suggestion to the compiler that may be totally ignored does not make it any less standard.
I don't think it was in C89/90 which may be what some embedded compilers use but I would give serious consideration to upgrading in that case.
However, even where inline is available, I generally leave those decisions up to the compiler itself since most modern ones are more than capable of figuring out how best to optimise code (and usually far better than I). The inline keyword, like register and auto, is not something I normally worry about at all.
You can use macros instead since that's relatively simple text substitution that generally happens before the compile phase but you should be aware of the limitations and foibles.
Or you can manually inline code (ie, duplicate it) although I wouldn't suggest this as an option since it may quickly become a maintenance nightmare.
Myself, I would write the code using normal functions without any of those tricks and then introduce them where necessary (and only if you can demonstrate that they're needed, such as a specific performance issue).
You should always assume that the coder who has to maintain your code is a psychopathic killer who knows where you live :-)
As others have said, inline was integrated to the C standard 11 years ago.
Other than was indicated, inline makes a difference since it changes the visibility properties of the function. In particular for large libraries with a lot of functions declared only static you might have one version of any these function in all object files (e.g when you compile with debugging switched on).
Please have a look into that post: Myth and reality about inline in C99
As evil as they may be, macros are still king (although specific compilers may support extra capabilities).
Here, now it's "portable across compilers":
#if (__STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L)
#define inline
#endif
static inline int foobar(int x) /* ... */
By the way, as others have said, the inline keyword is just a hint and rather useless, but the important keyword is static. Unless your function is declared static, it will have external linkage, and the compiler is unlikely to consider it a candidate for inlining when it makes its own decisions about which functions to inline.
Also note that unlike in C++, the C language does not allow inline without static.
I'm used to old-style C and and have just recently started to explore c99 features. I've just one question: Will my program compile successfully if I use c99 in my program, the c99 flag with gcc and link it with prior c99 libraries?
So, should I stick to old C89 or evolve?
I believe that they are compatible in that respect. That is as long as the stuff that you are compiling against doesn't step on any of the new goodies. For instance, if the old code contains enum bool { false, true }; then you are in trouble. As a similar dinosaur, I am slowly embracing the wonderful new world of C99. After all, it has only been out there lurking for about 10 years now ;)
You should evolve. Thanks for listening :-)
Actually, I'll expand on that.
You're right that C99 has been around for quite a while. You should (in my opinion) be using that standard for anything other than legacy code (where you just fix bugs rather than add new features). It's probably not worth it for legacy code but you should (as with all business decisions) do your own cost/benefit analysis.
I'm already ensuring my new code is compatible with C1x - while I'm not using any of the new features yet, I try to make sure it won't break.
As to what code to look out for, the authors of the standards take backward compatibility very seriously. Their job was not ever to design a new language, it was to codify existing practices.
The phase they're in at the moment allows them some more latitude in updating the language but they still follow the Hippocratic oath in terms of their output: "first of all, do no harm".
Generally, if your code is broken with a new standard, the compiler is forced to tell you. So simply compiling your code base will be an excellent start. However, if you read the C99 rationale document, you'll see the phrase "quiet change" appear - this is what you need to watch out for.
These are behavioral changes in the compiler that you don't need to be informed about and may be the source of much angst and gnashing of teeth if your application starts acting strange. Don't worry about the "quiet change in c89" bits - if they were a problerm, you would have already been bitten by them.
That document, by the way, is an excellent read to understand why the actual standard says what it says.
Some C89 features are not valid C99
Arguably, those features exist only for historical reasons, and should not be used in modern C89 code, but they do exist.
The C99 N1256 standard draft foreword paragraph 5 compares C99 to older revisions, and is a good place to start searching for those incompatibilities, even though it has by far more extensions than restrictions.
Implicit int return and variable types
Mentioned by Lutz in a comment, e.g. the following are valid C89:
static i;
f() { return 1; }
but not C99, in which you have to write:
static int i;
int f() { return 1; }
This also precludes calling functions without prototypes in C99: Are prototypes required for all functions in C89, C90 or C99?
n1256 says:
remove implicit int
Return without expression for non void function
Valid C89, invalid C99:
int f() { return; }
I think in C89 it returns an implementation defined value. n1256 says:
return without expression not permitted in function that returns a value
Integer division with negative operand
C89: rounds to an implementation defined direction
C99: rounds to 0
So if your compiler rounded to -inf, and you relied on that implementation defined behavior, your compiler is now forced to break your code on C99.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/3604984/895245
n1256 says:
reliable integer division
Windows compatibility
One major practical concern is being able to compile in Windows, since Microsoft does not intend to implement C99 fully too soon.
This is for example why libgit2 limits allowed C99 features.
Respectfully: Try it and find out. :-)
Though, keep in mind that even if you need to fix a few minior compiling differences, moving up is probably worth it.
If you don't violate the explicit C99 features,a c90 code will work fine c99 flag with another prior c99 libraries.
But there are some dos based libraries in C89 like ,, that will certainly not work.
C99 is much flexible so feel free to migrate :-)
The calling conventions between C libraries hasn't changed in ages, and in fact, I'm not sure it ever has.
Operating systems at this point rely heavily on the C calling conventions since the C APIs tend to be the glue between the pieces of the OS.
So, basically the answer is "Yes, the binaries will be backwards compatible. No, naturally, code using C99 features can't later be compiled with a non-C99 compiler."
It's intended to be backwards compatible. It formalizes extensions that many vendors have already implemented. It's possible, maybe even probable, that a well written program won't have any issues when compiling with C99.
In my experience, recompiling some modules and not others to save time... wastes a lot of time. Usually there is some easily overlooked detail that needs the new compiler to make it all compatible.
There are a few parts of the C89 Standard which are ambiguously written, and depending upon how one interprets the rule about types of pointers and the objects they're accessing, the Standard may be viewed as describing one of two very different languages--one of which is semantically much more powerful and consequently usable in a wider range of fields, and one of which allows more opportunities for compiler-based optimization. The C99 Standard "clarified" the rule to make clear that it makes no effort to mandate compatibility with the former language, even though it was overwhelmingly favored in many fields; it also treats as undefined some things that were defined in C89 but only because the C89 rules weren't written precisely enough to forbid them (e.g. the use of memcpy for type punning in cases where the destination has heap duration).
C99 may thus be compatible with the language that its authors thought was described by C89, but is not compatible with the language that was processed by most C89 compilers throughout the 1990s.