Defect Report Summary for C11
Version 1.10

Date: April 2016
Defect Summary Date Status
DR 400 realloc with size zero problems 04/2013 Closed
DR 401 "happens before" cannot be cyclic 10/2012 Closed
DR 402 memory model coherence is not aligned with C++11 10/2013 Closed
DR 403 malloc() and free() in the memory model 10/2012 Closed
DR 404 joke fragment remains in a footnote 10/2012 Closed
DR 405 mutex specification not aligned with C++11 on total order 10/2013 Closed
DR 406 Visible sequences of side effects are redundant 04/2016 Closed
DR 407 SC fences do not restrict modification order enough 04/2016 Closed
DR 408 intra-thread synchronization 04/2013 Closed
DR 409 f(inf) is inf being a range error 04/2016 Review
DR 410 ilogb inconsistent with lrint, lround 04/2013 Closed
DR 411 Predefined macro values 02/2012 Published
DR 412 #elif 04/2013 Closed
DR 413 initialization 10/2014 Closed
DR 414 typos in 6.27 threads.h 04/2013 Closed
DR 415 Missing divide by zero entry in Annex J.2 04/2013 Closed
DR 416 Proposed defect report regarding tss_t 10/2014 Closed
DR 417 Missing entries in Annex J 04/2013 Closed
DR 418 fmod(0.,Nan) and fmod(Nan, infinity) 04/2013 Closed
DR 419 What the heck is a "generic function"? 10/2013 Closed
DR 420 syntax error in specification of for-statement 04/2013 Closed
DR 421 initialization of atomic_flag 04/2014 Closed
DR 422 initialization of atomic types 04/2014 Closed
DR 423 underspecification for qualified rvalues 04/2016 Closed
DR 424 underspecification of tss_t 10/2014 Closed
DR 425 no specification for the access to variables with temporary storage 10/2013 Closed
DR 426 G.5.1: -yv and -x/v are ambiguous 10/2014 Closed
DR 427 Function Parameter and Return Value Assignments 04/2016 Review
DR 428 runtime-constraint issue with sprintf family of routines in Annex K 04/2014 Closed
DR 429 Should gets_s discard next input line when (s == NULL) ? 10/2014 Closed
DR 430 getenv_s, maxsize should be allowed to be zero 04/2014 Closed
DR 431 atomic_compare_exchange: What does it mean to say two structs compare equal? 04/2016 Closed
DR 432 Is 0.0 required to be a representable value? 04/2014 Closed
DR 433 Issue with constraints for wide character function 10/2014 Closed
DR 434 Missing constraint w.r.t. Atomic 10/2014 Closed
DR 435 Missing constraint w.r.t. Imaginary 10/2014 Closed
DR 436 Request for interpretation of C11 6.8.5#6 10/2014 Closed
DR 437 clock overflow 04/2016 Closed
DR 438 ungetc / ungetwc and file position after discarding push back 04/2015 Closed
DR 439 Issues with the definition of “full expression” 04/2016 Review
DR 440 Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 1 04/2015 Closed
DR 441 Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 2 04/2016 Closed
DR 442 Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 3 04/2015 Closed
DR 443 Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 4 04/2015 Closed
DR 444 Issues with alignment in C11, part 1 04/2016 Open
DR 445 Issues with alignment in C11, part 2 10/2015 Closed
DR 446 Use byte instead of character for memcmp, memcpy 10/2014 Closed
DR 447 Boolean from complex 10/2014 Closed
DR 448 What are the semantics of a # non-directive? 10/2015 Closed
DR 449 What is the value of TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS for implementations with no maximum? 04/2015 Closed
DR 450 tmpnam_s clears s[0] 10/2015 Closed
DR 451 Instability of uninitialized automatic variables 04/2015 Closed
DR 452 Effective Type in Loop Invariant 04/2016 Closed
DR 453 Atomic flag type and operations 04/2016 Review
DR 454 ATOMIC_VAR_INIT (issues 3 and 4) 04/2015 Closed
DR 455 ATOMIC_VAR_INIT issue 5 10/2015 Closed
DR 456 Compile time definition of UINTN_C(value) 10/2015 Closed
DR 457 The ctime_s function in Annex K defined incorrectly 04/2015 Closed
DR 458 ATOMIC_XXX_LOCK_FREE macros not constant expressions 04/2015 Closed
DR 459 atomic_load missing const qualifier 04/2015 Closed
DR 460 aligned_alloc underspecified 04/2015 Closed
DR 461 problems with references to objects in signal handlers 10/2015 Closed
DR 462 Clarifying objects accessed in signal handlers 04/2016 Closed
DR 463 Left-shifting into the sign bit 04/2015 Closed
DR 464 Clarifying the Behavior of the #line Directive 10/2015 Closed
DR 465 Fixing an inconsistency in atomic_is_lock_free 04/2016 Review
DR 466 scope of a for loop control declaration 10/2015 Closed
DR 467 maximum representable finite description vs math 04/2016 Open
DR 468 strncpy_s clobbers buffer past null 10/2015 Closed
DR 469 lock ownership vs. thread termination 04/2016 Open
DR 470 mtx_trylock should be allowed to fail spuriously 04/2016 Closed
DR 471 Complex math functions cacosh and ctanh 10/2015 Closed
DR 472 Introduction to complex arithmetic in 7.3.1p3 wrong due to CMPLX 04/2016 Closed
DR 473 "A range error occurs if x is too large." is misleading 04/2016 Open
DR 474 NOTE 1 Clarification for atomic_compare_exchange 04/2016 Closed
DR 475 Misleading Atomic library references to atomic types 04/2016 Review
DR 476 volatile semantics for lvalues 04/2016 Open
DR 477 nan should take a string argument 04/2016 Review
DR 478 valid uses of the main function 04/2016 Review
DR 479 unclear specification of mtx_trylock on non-recursive muteness 04/2016 Open
DR 480 cnd_wait and cnd_timewait should allow spurious wake-ups 04/2016 Open
DR 481 Controlling expression of _Generic primary expression 04/2016 Open
DR 482 Macro invocation split over many files 04/2016 Open
DR 483 __LINE__ and __FILE__ in macro replacement list 04/2016 Review
DR 484 invalid characters in strcoll() 04/2016 Review
DR 485 Problem with the specification of ATOMIC_VAR_INIT 04/2016 Open
DR 486 Inconsistent specification for arithmetic on atomic objects 04/2016 Review
DR 487 timespec vs. tm 04/2016 Open
DR 488 c16rtomb() on wide characters encoded as multiple char16_t 04/2016 Open
DR 489 Integer Constant Expression 04/2016 Open
DR 490 Unwritten Assumptions About if-then 04/2016 Open
DR 491 Concern with Keywords that Match Reserved Identifiers 04/2016 Open
DR 492 Named Child struct-union with no Member 04/2016 Open
DR 493 Mutex Initialization Underspecified 04/2016 Open
DR 494 Part 1: Alignment specifier expression evaluation 04/2016 Open
DR 495 Part 2: Atomic specifier expression evaluation 04/2016 Open
DR 496 offsetof questions 04/2016 Open
DR 497 "white-space character" defined in two places 04/2016 Open
DR 498 mblen, mbtowc, and wctomb thread-safety 04/2016 Open
DR 499 Anonymous structure in union behavior 04/2016 Open

DR 400

DR 474 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 401, or summary at top


Submitter: Nick Stoughton (US)
Submission Date: 2011-10-24
Source: Austin Group
Reference Document: N1559
Subject: realloc with size zero problems

Summary

There are at least three existing realloc behaviors when NULL is returned; the differences only occur for a size of 0 (for non-zero size, all three implementations set errno to ENOMEM when returning NULL, even though that is not required by C99).

AIX
realloc(NULL,0) always returns NULL, errno is EINVAL
realloc(ptr,0) always returns NULL, ptr freed, errno is EINVAL
BSD
realloc(NULL,0) only gives NULL on alloc failure, errno is ENOMEM
realloc(ptr,0) only gives NULL on alloc failure, ptr unchanged, errno is ENOMEM
glibc
realloc(NULL,0) only gives NULL on alloc failure, errno is ENOMEM
realloc(ptr,0) always returns NULL, ptr freed, errno unchanged

The Austin Group raised this matter with WG14 during earlier meetings (most notably during the London 2011 meeting). The direction from WG14 has led to The Austin Group aligning the POSIX text more closely to that in C99 and C1x as a part of TC1.

The behavior now required in POSIX is that implemented by BSD above. However, C99 has a loophole in implementation-defined behavior that still appears to permit AIX and glibc behaviors. The C1x draft carries the same wording loophole, so the planned course of action is to raise a defect against C1x once it completes standardization, where the outcome of that defect will either be that C1x tightens the wording to eliminate the loophole or relaxes the wording to align with existing practice. Therefore, the behavior of errno in Issue 8 should be deferred until after any C1x defect has been resolved.

If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the size were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object.

An implementation should not be allowed to define the behavior of returning a null pointer as a successful reallocation; if a null pointer is returned, then the orignal pointer has not been freed.

Suggested Change

At 7.22.3, para 1, change:
If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the size were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object.
to
If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned and errno set to indicate the error, or the behavior is as if the size were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object.
Add a footnote to this sentence stating:
Note Memory allocated by these functions should be freed via a call to free, and not by means of a realoc(p, 0).

Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In subsection 7.22.3 paragraph 1, change
If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned, ...
to
If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned to indicate an error, ...
In subsection 7.22.3.5 (The realloc function), change the final sentence of paragraph 3 from
If memory for the new object cannot be allocated, the old object is not deallocated and its value is unchanged.
to
If size is non-zero and memory for the new object is not allocated, the old object is not deallocated. If size is zero and memory for the new object is not allocated, it is implementation-defined whether the old object is deallocated. If the old object is not deallocated, its value shall be unchanged.
In subsection 7.22.3.5 (The realloc function), change paragraph 4 from
The realloc function returns a pointer to the new object (which may have the same value as a pointer to the old object), or a null pointer if the new object could not be allocated.
to
The realloc function returns a pointer to the new object (which may have the same value as a pointer to the old object), or a null pointer if the new object has not been allocated.
Add to subsection 7.31.12 a new paragraph (paragraph 2):
Invoking realloc with a size argument equal to zero is an obsolescent feature.

DR 474 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 401, or summary at top



DR 401

DR 400 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 402, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: "happens before" can not be cyclic

Summary

C++11 forbids "happens before" from being cyclic, but this change has not made its way into C11. In order to fix this, the following sentence (taken from C++ N3291, 1.10p12) should be added to 5.1.2.4p18:

The implementation shall ensure that no program execution demonstrates a cycle in the "happens before" relation.

NOTE: This cycle would otherwise be possible only through the use of consume operations.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum
See above.


Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Add to 5.1.2.4p18:
The implementation shall ensure that no program execution demonstrates a cycle in the "happens before" relation.

NOTE: This cycle would otherwise be possible only through the use of consume operations.

DR 400 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 402, or summary at top



DR 402

DR 401 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 403, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: memory model coherence is not aligned with C++11

Summary

The memory model described in N1569 matches an older version of the C++0x memory model, one that allowed executions that were not intended by the designers. The recommandation is to match the C++11 text by removing the sentence starting 'Furthermore' in 5.1.2.4p22, and including the following paragraphs in section 5.1.2.4 (Taken from C++ N3291, 1.10p15 through 18):
If an operation A that modifies an atomic object M happens before an operation B that modifies M , then A shall be earlier than B in the modification order of M .

NOTE: The requirement above is known as write-write coherence.

If a value computation A of an atomic object M happens before a value computation B of M , and A takes its value from a side effect X on M, then the value computed by B shall either be the value stored by X or the value stored by a side effect Y on M, where Y follows X in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as read-read coherence.

If a value computation A of an atomic object M happens before an operation B on M, then A shall take its value from a side effect X on M, where X precedes B in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as read-write coherence.

If a side effect X on an atomic object M happens before a value computation B of M, then the evaluation B shall take its value from X or from a side effect Y that follows X in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as write-read coherence.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 5.1.2.4 Paragraph 22 starting at the third sentence, add:
If an operation A that modifies an atomic object M happens before an operation B that modifies M , then A shall be earlier than B in the modification order of M .

NOTE: The requirement above is known as write-write coherence.

If a value computation A of an atomic object M happens before a value computation B of M , and A takes its value from a side effect X on M, then the value computed by B shall either be the value stored by X or the value stored by a side effect Y on M, where Y follows X in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as read-read coherence.

If a value computation A of an atomic object M happens before an operation B on M, then A shall take its value from a side effect X on M, where X precedes B in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as read-write coherence.

If a side effect X on an atomic object M happens before a value computation B of M, then the evaluation B shall take its value from X or from a side effect Y that follows X in the modification order of M.

NOTE: The requirement above is known as write-read coherence.

DR 401 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 403, or summary at top



DR 403

DR 402 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 404, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: malloc() and free() in the memory model

Summary

The synchronisation afforded to malloc and free is missing some vital ordering, and as the definition stands it makes little sense and creates cycles in happens before. C++11 includes a total order over the allocation and deallocation calls, which fixes the problem and seems to give a sensible semantics. From 18.6.1.4p1 in N3291:
Calls to these functions that allocate or deallocate a particular unit of storage shall occur in a single total order, and each such deallocation call shall happen before the next allocation (if any) in this order.
Unfortunately, there is a typo here. Happens before edges are not transitively closed in to the happens before relation, but the edges here are meant to be. Instead the sentence above should create a synchronises with edge. In light of this, we suggest removing the last two sentences from 7.22.3p2 and replacing them with:
Calls to these functions that allocate or deallocate a particular region of memory shall occur in a single total order, and each such deallocation call shall synchronise with the next allocation (if any) in this order.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Replace last two sentences in 7.22.3 paragraph 2 with:
Calls to these functions that allocate or deallocate a particular region of memory shall occur in a single total order, and each such deallocation call shall synchronize with the next allocation (if any) in this order.

DR 402 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 404, or summary at top



DR 404

DR 403 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 405, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: joke fragment remains in a footnote

Summary

C11 seems to have inherited part of a joke from C++, which ought to be removed or made whole and annotated as such. Originally, C++0x had the footnotes:
"Atomic objects are neither active nor radioactive" and "Among other implications, atomic variables shall not decay".
The first is pretty clearly a joke, but it's not obvious that the second doesn't have some technical meaning, and that is the one that remains in C11 in 7.17.3p13.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee discussion

Feb 2012

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 7.17.3 Paragraph 13, remove footnote 256.

DR 403 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 405, or summary at top



DR 405

DR 404 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 406, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: The mutex specification

Summary

The C11 specification of mutexes is missing the total order over all the calls on a particular mutex. This is present in C++11. The following is from 30.4.1.2p5 in N3291:
For purposes of determining the existence of a data race, these behave as atomic operations (1.10). The lock and unlock operations on a single mutex shall appear to occur in a single total order. [ Note: this can be viewed as the modification order (1.10) of the mutex. — end note ]
The synchronisation in 7.26.4 is defined in terms of some order over these calls, even though none is specified, for instance 7.26.4.4p2 reads:
Prior calls to mtx_unlock on the same mutex shall synchronize with this operation.
This seems like simple omission. We suggest adding a new paragraph to 7.26.4 that matches C++11:
For purposes of determining the existence of a data race, mutex calls behave as atomic operations. The lock and unlock operations on a single mutex shall appear to occur in a single total order.

NOTE: This can be viewed as the modification order of the mutex.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Add the following as 7.26.4 p1 and p2:
For purposes of determining the existence of a data race, lock and unlock operations behave as atomic operations. All lock and unlock operations on a particular mutex occur in some particular total order.

NOTE: This total order can be viewed as the modification order of the mutex.

Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Accept wording from Oct 2012 as proposed technical corrigendum

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Add the following as 7.26.4 p1 and p2:
For purposes of determining the existence of a data race, lock and unlock operations behave as atomic operations. All lock and unlock operations on a particular mutex occur in some particular total order.

NOTE: This total order can be viewed as the modification order of the mutex.

DR 404 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 406, or summary at top



DR 406

DR 405 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 407, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: Visible sequences of side effects are redundant

Summary

It has been mathematically proved that a simplification can be made to the memory model as it is specified in the final draft of the C++11 standard. Essentially, the restriction defining visible sequence of side effects (vsse) is redundant and can be removed with no ill effects. The main motivation for doing this is that the current restriction is misleading. 5.1.2.4p22 defines vsse's:
The visible sequence of side effects on an atomic object M, with respect to a value computation B of M, is a maximal contiguous sub-sequence of side effects in the modification order of M, where the first side effect is visible with respect to B, and for every subsequent side effect, it is not the case that B happens before it. The value of an atomic object M, as determined by evaluation B, shall be the value stored by some operation in the visible sequence of M with respect to B.
The wording of this paragraph makes it seem as if the vsse identifies the writes that an atomic read is allowed to read from, but this is not the case. There can be writes in the vsse that cannot be read due to the coherence requirements (to be included in C, 1.10p15 through 1.10p18 in C++ N3291). Consequently this is even more confusing than it at first appears.

Also propose changing 5.1.2.4p22 to the following:

The value of an atomic object M, as determined by evaluation B, shall be the value stored by some side effect A that modifies M, where B does not happen before A.
With a note to remind the reader of the coherence requirements:
NOTE: The set of side effects that a given evaluation might take its value from is also restricted by the rest of the rules described here, and in particular, by the coherence requirements below
If the committee is concerned about allowing a differing text from C++11, then a note could be added to assure the reader:
NOTE: Although the rules for multi-threaded executions differ here from those of C++11, the executions they allow are precisely the same. Visible sequences of side effects are a redundant restriction.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

This item has become WG21 Core issue 1466
Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

There has been no discussion or action from WG21.
Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

These changes have been proposed for the C++ working draft:

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

WG21 liaison has been asked to ascertain status of this w.r.t. C++14 and to provide a suggested TC.

Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

A paper N1856 was provided that discusses the drift between the two Standards and a first cut at some possible wording changes, as follows. It was not, however, discussed, but does provide insight as to the necessary direction for a resolution to this DR.
  1. Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 22 as follows:

    The visible sequence of side effects on an atomic object M, with respect to a value computation B of M, is a maximal contiguous sub-sequence of side effects in the modification order of M, where the first side effect is visible with respect to B, and for every side effect, it is not the case that B happens before it. The value of an atomic object M, as determined by evaluation B, shall be the value stored by some operation in the visible sequence of M with respect to B side effect A that modifies M, where B does not happen before A. [Note: It can be shown that the visible sequence of side effects of a value computation is unique given The set of side effects that a given evaluation might take its value from is also restricted by the rest of the rules described here, and in particular, by the coherence requirements below. —end note]

  2. Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 24 as follows:

    [Note: The visible sequence of side effects value observed by a load of an atomic depends on the “happens before” relation, which depends on the values observed by loads of atomics, which we are restricting here. The intended reading is that there must exist an association of atomic loads with modifications they observe that, together with suitably chosen modification orders and the “happens before” relation derived as described above, satisfy the resulting constraints as imposed here. —end note]

  3. Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 27 as follows:

    [Note: Compiler transformations that introduce assignments to a potentially shared memory location that would not be modified by the abstract machine are generally precluded by this standard, since such an assignment might overwrite another assignment by a different thread in cases in which an abstract machine execution would not have encountered a data race. This includes implementations of data member assignment that overwrite adjacent members in separate memory locations. Reordering of atomic loads in cases in which the atomics in question may alias is also generally precluded, since this may violate the “visible sequence” coherence rules. —end note]

  4. Change 7.17.3 paragraph 6 as follows:

    There shall be a single total order S on all memory_order_seq_cst operations, consistent with the “happens before” order and modification orders for all affected locations, such that each memory_order_seq_cst operation B that loads a value from an atomic object M observes one of the following values:

    • the result of the last modification A of M that precedes B in S, if it exists, or

    • if A exists, the result of some modification of M in the visible sequence of side effects with respect to B that is not memory_order_seq_cst and that does not happen before A, or

    • if A does not exist, the result of some modification of M in the visible sequence of side effects with respect to B that is not memory_order_seq_cst.

    [Note:...

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The provided words were accepted, with slight editorial changes, as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 22 from:

The visible sequence of side effects on an atomic object M, with respect to a value computation B of M, is a maximal contiguous sub-sequence of side effects in the modification order of M, where the first side effect is visible with respect to B, and for every subsequent side effect, it is not the case that B happens before it. The value of an atomic object M, as determined by evaluation B, shall be the value stored by some operation in the visible sequence of M with respect to B.

to:

The value of an atomic object M, as determined by evaluation B, shall be the value stored by some side effect A that modifies M, where B does not happen before A.

After 5.1.2.4 paragraph 22 add:

Note The set of side effects from which a given evaluation might take its value is also restricted by the rest of the rules described here, and in particular, by the coherence requirements below.

Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 24 from:

Note 11: The visible sequence of side effects depends on the “happens before” relation, which in turn depends on the values observed by loads of atomics, which we are restricting here. The intended reading is that there must exist an association of atomic loads with modifications they observe that, together with suitably chosen modification orders and the “happens before” relation derived as described above, satisfy the resulting constraints as imposed here.

to

Note 11: The value observed by a load of an atomic depends on the “happens before” relation, which in turn depends on the values observed by loads of atomics. The intended reading is that there must exist an association of atomic loads with modifications they observe that, together with suitably chosen modification orders and the “happens before” relation derived as described above, satisfy the resulting constraints as imposed here.

Change 5.1.2.4 paragraph 27 from:

Note 13: Compiler transformations that introduce assignments to a potentially shared memory location that would not be modified by the abstract machine are generally precluded by this standard, since such an assignment might overwrite another assignment by a different thread in cases in which an abstract machine execution would not have encountered a data race. This includes implementations of data member assignment that overwrite adjacent members in separate memory locations. Reordering of atomic loads in cases in which the atomics in question may alias is also generally precluded, since this may violate the “visible sequence” rules.

to

Note 13: Compiler transformations that introduce assignments to a potentially shared memory location that would not be modified by the abstract machine are generally precluded by this standard, since such an assignment might overwrite another assignment by a different thread in cases in which an abstract machine execution would not have encountered a data race. This includes implementations of data member assignment that overwrite adjacent members in separate memory locations. Reordering of atomic loads in cases in which the atomics in question may alias is also generally precluded, since this may violate the coherence requirements.

Change 7.17.3 paragraph 6 from:

There shall be a single total order S on all memory_order_seq_cst operations, consistent with the “happens before” order and modification orders for all affected locations, such that each memory_order_seq_cst operation B that loads a value from an atomic object M observes one of the following values:

to:

There shall be a single total order S on all memory_order_seq_cst operations, consistent with the “happens before” order and modification orders for all affected locations, such that each memory_order_seq_cst operation B that loads a value from an atomic object M observes one of the following values:

DR 405 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 407, or summary at top



DR 407

DR 406 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 408, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject:

Summary

C11 seems to omit the restriction imposed in C++11 in 29.3p7 (from N3291):
For atomic operations A and B on an atomic object M, if there are memory_order_seq_cst fences X and Y such that Ais sequenced before X, Y is sequenced before B, and X precedes Y in S, then B occurs later than A in the modification order of M.
Furthermore, it seems that both C11 and C++11 are missing the following two derivatives of this rule:
For atomic modifications A and B of an atomic object M, if there is a memory_order_seq_cst fence X such that A is sequenced before X, and X precedes B in S, then B occurs later than A in the modification order of M.
For atomic modifications A and B of an atomic object M, if there is a memory_order_seq_cst fence Y such that Y is sequenced before B, and A precedes Y in S, then B occurs later than A in the modification order of M.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

See above.
Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

WG21 liaison has been asked to ascertain status of this w.r.t. C++14 and to provide a suggested TC.

Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

A paper N1856 was provided that discusses the drift between the two Standards and a first cut at some possible wording changes, as follows. It was not, however, discussed, but does provide insight as to the necessary direction for a resolution to this DR.
  1. [Drafting note: The project editor is kindly asked to consider to replace in 1.10 [intro.multithread] p17 the phrase "before an operation B on M" by "before a modification B of M".]

  2. Change 7.17.3 paragraph 11 as indicated: [Drafting note: Note that the wording change intentionally does also replace the term atomic operation by atomic modification]

    For atomic operations A and B on an atomic object M, if there are memory_order_seq_cst fences X and Y such that A is sequenced before X, Y is sequenced before B, and X precedes Y in S, then B occurs later than A in the modification order of M. For atomic modifications A and B of an atomic object M, B occurs later than A in the modification order of M if:

    [ Note: memory_order_seq_cst ensures sequential consistency only for a program that is free of data races and uses exclusively memory_order_seq_cst operations. Any use of weaker ordering will invalidate this guarantee unless extreme care is used. In particular, memory_order_seq_cst fences ensure a total order only for the fences themselves. Fences cannot, in general, be used to restore sequential consistency for atomic operations with weaker ordering specifications. —end note ]

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The provided words were adopted as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum. The project editor is asked to review and replace the phrase "before an operation B on M" by "before a modification B of M".

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 7.17.3 paragraph 11 from:

For atomic operations A and B on an atomic object M, if there are memory_order_seq_cst fences X and Y such that A is sequenced before X, Y is sequenced before B, and X precedes Y in S, then B occurs later than A in the modification order of M.

to:

For atomic modifications A and B of an atomic object M, B occurs later than A in the modification order of M if:

DR 406 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 408, or summary at top



DR 408

DR 407 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 410, or summary at top


Submitter: Batty
Submission Date: 2011-10-14
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1584
Subject: Should locks provide intra-thread synchronization

Summary

Most of the C++ standard, synchronisation is used exclusively inter-thread, so in particular, synchronisation can't be used to avoid undefined behavior arising from conflicting un-sequenced memory accesses, e.g.:
(x = 1)==(x = 2)
Firstly, C does not define this sort of thing as undefined behavior. Is this intentional? Secondly in C++ locks can currently be used to fix up such programs and avoid undefined behavior, e.g.:
(lock; x = 1; unlock; x)==(lock; x = 2; unlock; x)
The reason not to allow this sort of synchronisation in general is, because it disallows some single threaded compiler optimisations. Is intra-thread locking intended to be defined and usable?

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Oct 2011 meeting

Committee Discussion

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

DR 407 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 410, or summary at top



DR 409

DR 486 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 427, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2012-1-11
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1593
Subject: f(inf) is inf being a range error

Summary

Several of the functions in <math.h> that compute infinity for f(infinity) have the phrase (or something similar):

A range error occurs if the magnitude of x is too large.

Since infinity is 'too large', one might conclude that f(infinity) is a range error for those functions.

However, 7.12.1#5 has:

A floating result overflows if the magnitude of the mathematical result is finite but so large that the mathematical result cannot be represented without extraordinary roundoff error ...

The key word being 'finite'. So, one could conclude f(infinity) being infinity is not overflow (and therefore, not a range error).

To me, this appears to be a contradiction. I have encountered both kinds of implementations; some treat this case as a range error, and others that do not.

For both LIA and IEEE-754, f(infinity) being infinity is not considered an error.

Suggested Change

  1. 7.12.5.4 The cosh functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large.

  2. 7.12.5.5 The sinh functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large.

  3. 7.12.6.1 The exp functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large.

  4. 7.12.6.2 The exp2 functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large.

  5. 7.12.6.3 The expm1 functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large.

  6. 7.12.6.6 The ldexp functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.

  7. 7.12.6.13 The scalbn and scalbln functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.

  8. 7.12.7.3 The hypot functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.

  9. 7.12.7.4 The pow functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.

  10. 7.12.8.2 The erfc functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if finite x is too large.

  11. 7.12.8.3 The lgamma functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if finite x is too large.

  12. 7.12.8.4 The tgamma functions

    Change to: A range error occurs if the magnitude of finite x is too large and may occur if the magnitude of x is too small.

  13. 7.12.12.1 The fdim functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.

  14. 7.12.13.1 The fma functions

    Change to: A range error may occur for finite arguments.


Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

Fred presented another paper N1979 noting an error in the October 2012 committee response, and after discussion, the proposed clarification was adopted, and is as follows

Proposed Committee Response

The definition of range error in 7.12.1 paragraph 4 excludes infinity.

For example, exp(+infinity) is +infinity. Since the input +infinity is representable, then the output +infinity is representable in an object of the specified type. By, 7.12.1 paragraph 4, a range error has not happened. Also, by 7.12.1 paragraph 5, since the result is not finite, overflow has not happened.

DR 486 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 427, or summary at top



DR 410

DR 408 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 412, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2012-1-11
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1595
Subject: ilogb inconsistent with lrint, lround

For the case of converting a large finite value to an integer value, lrint and lround have one set of requirements, while ilogb has another set. This is inconsistent.

Both 7.12.9.5 The lrint and llrint functions and 7.12.9.7 The lround and llround functions have:

If the rounded value is outside the range of the return type, the numeric result is unspecified and a domain error or range error may occur.

While 7.12.6.5 The ilogb functions has:

If the correct value is outside the range of the return type, the numeric result is unspecified.

I believe that the following changes to C11 should be done.

  1. 7.12.6.5 The ilogb functions:

    Change to: If the correct value is outside the range of the return type, the numeric result is unspecified and a domain error or range error may occur.


Feb 2012 meeting

Committee discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 7.12.6.5 paragraph 2, change the last sentence to:
If the correct value is outside the range of the return type, the numeric result is unspecified and a domain error or range error may occur.


DR 408 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 412, or summary at top



DR 411

DR 411 Prev <— Published —> Next DR 411, or summary at top


Submitter: Project Editor (Larry Jones)
Submission Date: 2012-01-18
Source: Project Editor
Reference Document: N/A
Subject: Predefined macro values

Summary

The actual values for the predefined macros __STDC_VERSION__ and __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ should be specified.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Change the relevant list entry in 6.10.8.1 to:

__STDC_VERSION__ The integer constant 201112L.

Change the relevant list entry in 6.10.8.3 to:

__STDC_LIB_EXT1__ The integer constant 201112L.

Feb 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 6.10.8.1 from:

__STDC_VERSION__ The integer constant201ymmL.178)
to:
__STDC_VERSION__ The integer constant 201112L.178)

Change 6.10.8.3 from:

__STDC_LIB_EXT1__ The integer constant201ymmL, intended to indicate support for the extensions defined in annex K (Bounds-checking interfaces).179)
to:
__STDC_LIB_EXT1__ The integer constant 201112L, intended to indicate support for the extensions defined in annex K (Bounds-checking interfaces).179)


DR 411 Prev <— Published —> Next DR 411, or summary at top



DR 412

DR 410 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 413, or summary at top


Submitter: Edward Diener (comp.std.c)
Submission Date: 2012-01-18
Source: Project Editor (Larry Jones)
Reference Document: N/A
Subject: #elif

Summary

It appears that #elif is not entirely equivalent to #else, #if, and #endif.

Consider the code:

#if 1
...
#else
#if this is not a valid expression
...
#endif
#endif

This is well-defined. Since the controlling expression of the #if evaluates to true, the #else group is skipped and thus the nested #if is only processed through the directive name (6.10.1p6).

However, if this is recast using #elif:

#if 1
...
#elif this is not a valid expression
...
#endif

the #elif is not part of a group that is skipped and thus must be processed completely, including evaluating the controlling condition (even though the resulting value is of no interest).

I do not believe this was the committee's intent.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

In 6.10.1p6, change:

Only the first group whose control condition evaluates to true (nonzero) is processed.

to:

Only the first group whose control condition evaluates to true (nonzero) is processed; any following groups are skipped and their controlling directives are processed as if they were in a group that is skipped.

Feb 2012 meeting

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 6.10.1p6, change:

Only the first group whose control condition evaluates to true (nonzero) is processed.

to:

Only the first group whose control condition evaluates to true (nonzero) is processed; any following groups are skipped and their controlling directives are processed as if they were in a group that is skipped.


DR 410 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 413, or summary at top



DR 413

DR 412 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 414, or summary at top


Submitter: Willem Wakker
Submission Date: 2012-01-27
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1601
Subject: initialization

Summary

Consider the following code:
typedef struct {
int k;
int l;
int a[2];
} T;

typedef struct {
int i;
T t;
} S;

T x = {.l = 43, .k = 42, .a[1] = 19, .a[0] = 18 };

void f(void)
{
S l = { 1, .t = x, .t.l = 41, .t.a[1] = 17};
}

The question is: what is now the value of l.t.k? Is it 42 (due to the initialization of .t = x) or is it 0 (due to the fact that .t.l starts an incomplete initialization of .t?

The relevant clause from the standard is 6.7.9 clause 19:
19 The initialization shall occur in initializer list order, each initializer provided for a particular subobject overriding any previously listed initializer for the same subobject;151) all subobjects that are not initialized explicitly shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Feb 2012 Meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

There was no work performed on this DR.

Although both GCC and six compilers from IBM provide the unintended answer, it is believed to be such a rarely used feature that it is not depended upon to a great degree, and the compiler venders are willing to change their behavior appropriately.

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

There has been considerable discussion and several proposals ( N1659, N1749) to clarify the standard to no avail. Upon reflection, and consultation with the author, we believe that the proper course of action is twofold. First, simply answer the question asked as the committee believes that the standard already specifies correctly. To add clarification to the standard we will also add the examples from N1659 that leads to this answer.

Proposed Committee Response

The proper answer to the question raised according to the standard is that the value of l.t.k is 42, because implicit initialization does not override explicit initialization. We will also provide a non-normative example to further clarify the intent.

Proposed Committee Corrigendum

Add the following example to 6.7.9:

    typedef struct {
        int k;
        int l;
        int a[2];
    } T;

    typedef struct {
        int i;
        T t;
    } S;

    T x = {.l = 43, .k = 42, .a[1] = 19, .a[0] = 18 };

    void f(void)
    {
        S l = { 1, .t = x, .t.l = 41, .t.a[1] = 17};
    }

The value of l.t.k is 42, because implicit initialization does not override explicit initialization.


DR 412 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 414, or summary at top



DR 414

DR 413 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 415, or summary at top


Submitter: Tom Plum
Submission Date: 2012-03-20
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1614
Subject: Typos in 6.27 Threads <threads.h>

Summary

In 7.26.1 paragraph 5
The enumeration constants are
mtx_plain
which is passed to mtx_init to create a mutex object that supports neither timeout nor test and return;
the "test and return" is referring to try_lock, try_lock is not optional, therefore the "test and return" should be removed.

In 7.26.4.2 paragraph 2
The mtx_init function creates a mutex object with properties indicated by type,
which must have one of the six values:
mtx_plain for a simple non-recursive mutex,
mtx_timed for a non-recursive mutex that supports timeout,
mtx_plain | mtx_recursive for a simple recursive mutex, or
mtx_timed | mtx_recursive for a recursive mutex that supports timeout.
There are not six values listed, "six" should be changed to "these".

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Change 7.26.1 paragraph 5 to
The enumeration constants are
mtx_plain
which is passed to mtx_init to create a mutex object that does not support timeout;
Change 7.26.4.2 paragraph 2 to
The mtx_init function creates a mutex object with properties indicated by type,
which must have one of the these values:

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Adopt the Suggested Technical Corregendum as proposed.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 7.26.1 paragraph 5 to
The enumeration constants are
mtx_plain
which is passed to mtx_init to create a mutex object that does not support timeout;
Change 7.26.4.2 paragraph 2 to
The mtx_init function creates a mutex object with properties indicated by type,
which must have one of the these values:


DR 413 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 415, or summary at top



DR 415

DR 414 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 416, or summary at top


Submitter: Seacord (PL22.11)
Submission Date: 2012-06-02
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1617
Subject: Missing divide by zero entry in Annex J

Summary

The undefined behavior defined in paragraph 6 of 6.5.5 is missing in J.2 and should be added.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Add a bullet with the following text to J.2 after bullet 45

If the quotient a/b is not representable, the behavior of both a/b and a%b is undefined (6.5.5).

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Adopt the Suggested Technical Corregendum as proposed.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Add a bullet with the following text to J.2 after bullet 45

If the quotient a/b is not representable, the behavior of both a/b and a%b is undefined (6.5.5).


DR 414 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 416, or summary at top



DR 416

DR 415 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 417, or summary at top


Submitter: Owen Shepherd
Submission Date: 2012-08-12
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1627
Subject: tss_t destruction unspecified

Summary

The standard does not specify if or when destructors for thread specific data keys (created with the tss_create function) are invoked.

This proposal suggests to align the behavior with that specified by POSIX for pthread_key_t. This behavior is hoped to both match the intention of the standard, and be possible to implement on other systems (it is noted that a pthreads implementation exists for Windows, for example, while the behavior of POSIX and Windows thread local storage implementations differ greatly)

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

After 7.26.5.1p2, add

Returning from func shall have the same behaviour as invoking thrd_exit with the returned value

Change 7.26.5.5 parts 2 and 3 from

The thrd_exit function terminates execution of the calling thread and sets its result code to res.

The program shall terminate normally after the last thread has been terminated. The behavior shall be as if the program called the exit function with the status EXIT_SUCCESS at thread termination time.

to

For every thread specific storage key which was created with a non-NULL destructor and for which the value is non-NULL, thrd_exit shall set the value associated with the key to NULL and then invoke the destructor with its previous value. The order in which destructors are invoked is unspecified.

If after this process there remain keys with both non-NULL destructors and values, the implementation shall repeat this process up to TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS times.

If thrd_exit is not being invoked in the last thread in the process, then the implementation shall terminate execution of the calling thread and set its result code to res. Otherwise, the implementation shall behave as if exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) was invoked.

(This change provides application writers guarantees about the identity of the thread executing functions registered with atexit)

After 7.26.6.1p2, add

The value NULL shall be associated with the newly created key in all existing threads. Upon thread creation, the value associated with all keys shall be initialized to NULL

Note that destructors associated thread specific storage are not invoked at process exit.

To 7.26.6.2p2, append

If tss_delete is called while another thread is executing destructors, whether this will affect the number of invocations of the destructor associated with key on that thread is unspecified. If the thread from which tss_delete is invoked is executing destructors, then no further invocations of the destructor associated with key will occur on said thread.

Calling tss_delete will not result in the invocation of any destructors.

After 7.26.6.4p2, add

This action will not invoke the destructor associated with the key on the value being replaced.


Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

After several papers N1750, N1751, revisions, and much discussion, the committee has agreed on the following as the resolution.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

After 7.26.5.1 paragraph 2, add

Returning from func shall have the same behavior as invoking thrd_exit with the value returned from func.
Change 7.26.5.5, replace paragraph 2 with:
For every thread-specific storage key which was created with a non-null destructor and for which the value is non-null, thrd_exit shall set the value associated with the key to NULL and then invoke the destructor with its previous value. The order in which destructors are invoked is unspecified.

If after this process there remain keys with both non-null destructors and values, the implementation shall repeat this process up to TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS times.

Following this, the thrd_exit function terminates execution of the calling thread and sets its result code to res.

After 7.26.6.1 paragraph 2, add the following new paragraphs:
The value NULL shall be associated with the newly created key in all existing threads. Upon thread creation, the value associated with all keys shall be initialized to NULL.

Destructors associated with thread-specific storage are not invoked at program termination.

A call to tss_create from within a destructor results in undefined behavior.

In 7.26.6.2 paragraph 2, add the following new second sentence:
A call to tss_delete function results in undefined behavior if the call to tss_create which set key completed after the thread commenced executing destructors.
After 7.26.6.2 paragraph 2, add the following new paragraphs:
If tss_delete is called while another thread is executing destructors, whether this will affect the number of invocations of the destructor associated with key on that thread is unspecified.

Calling tss_delete will not result in the invocation of any destructors.

In 7.26.6.3 paragraph 2, add the following new second sentence:
A call to tss_get function results in undefined behavior if the call to tss_create which set key completed after the thread commenced executing destructors.
In 7.26.6.4 paragraph 2, add the following new second sentence:

A call to tss_set function results in undefined behavior if the call to tss_create which set key completed after the thread commenced executing destructors.

After 7.26.6.4 paragraph 2, add the following new paragraph:
This action will not invoke the destructor associated with the key on the value being replaced.


DR 415 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 417, or summary at top



DR 417

DR 416 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 418, or summary at top


Submitter: John Benito
Submission Date: Oct 2012
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1628
Subject: Annex J not updated with necessary aligned_alloc entries

Summary

The following unspecified behaviors are incomplete in Annex J.1, aligned_alloc() is missing in both entries.
— The order and contiguity of storage allocated by successive calls to the calloc, malloc, and realloc functions (7.22.3).

— The amount of storage allocated by a successful call to the calloc, malloc, or realloc function when 0 bytes was requested (7.22.3).
The following undefined behavior bullet is incomplete in Annex J.2, aligned_alloc() is missing.
— A non-null pointer returned by a call to the calloc, malloc, or realloc function with a zero requested size is used to access an object (7.22.3).
The following implementation-defined behavior bullet is incomplete in Annex J.3.12, aligned_alloc() is missing.
— Whether the calloc, malloc, and realloc functions return a null pointer or a pointer to an allocated object when the size requested is zero (7.22.3).

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Change bullet 42 of J.1 to:
— The order and contiguity of storage allocated by successive calls to the calloc, malloc, realloc, and aligned_alloc functions (7.22.3).
Change bullet 43 of J.1 to:
— The amount of storage allocated by a successful call to the calloc, malloc, realloc, or aligned_alloc function when 0 bytes was requested (7.22.3).
Change bullet 166 of J.2 to
— A non-null pointer returned by a call to the calloc, malloc, realloc, or aligned_alloc function with a zero requested size is used to access an object (7.22.3).
Change bullet 37 of J.3.12 to
— Whether the calloc, malloc, realloc and aligned_alloc functions return a null pointer or a pointer to an allocated object when the size requested is zero (7.22.3).

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Adopt as proposed the Suggested Technical Corrigendum.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change bullet 42 of J.1 to:
— The order and contiguity of storage allocated by successive calls to the calloc, malloc, realloc, and aligned_alloc functions (7.22.3).
Change bullet 43 of J.1 to:
— The amount of storage allocated by a successful call to the calloc, malloc, realloc, or aligned_alloc function when 0 bytes was requested (7.22.3).
Change bullet 166 of J.2 to
— A non-null pointer returned by a call to the calloc, malloc, realloc, or aligned_alloc function with a zero requested size is used to access an object (7.22.3).
Change bullet 37 of J.3.12 to
— Whether the calloc, malloc, realloc and aligned_alloc functions return a null pointer or a pointer to an allocated object when the size requested is zero (7.22.3).


DR 416 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 418, or summary at top



DR 418

DR 417 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 419, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2012-9-13
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1633
Related: N1497
Subject: Possible defect report: fmod(0.,NaN) and fmod(NaN,infinity)

First question. When Annex F is in effect, what should the value of fmod(0.,NaN) be? The two choices are 0. or NaN.

Annex F.10.7.1 The fmod functions has:

So, that first bullet item says fmod(0.,NaN) is 0.

Elsewhere in that annex (F.10 Mathematics, paragraph 11), we have:

Functions with a NaN argument return a NaN result and raise no floating-point exception, except where stated otherwise.

That says that fmod(0.,NaN) is NaN.

One idea is to explicitly add words about a NaN to the first bullet item in F.10.7.1, such as:

However, if F.10#11 covers NaN arguments before any other arguments are considered, then words about NaN could be removed from the second case in F.10.7.1, such as:

I believe that takes us back to before N1497 was done.

Second question: what should fmod(NaN,infinity) be? Must it be the same NaN argument, or may it be any NaN?

Annex F.10.7.1 The fmod functions has:

Which says fmod(NaN,infinity) must be the same NaN argument.

But, if F.10#11 covers this NaN argument, then this case is just some NaN.

It appears that the third bullet should either be left alone or changed to:

Some other functions that discuss NaN arguments in Annex F are: frexp, ilogb, modf, hypot, pow, fmax, fmin, and fma. Of those, only hypot, pow, fmax, and fmin have exceptions on NaN in implies NaN out.


Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Committee Response

The consensus was to do nothing and the author agrees.


DR 417 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 419, or summary at top



DR 419

DR 418 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 420, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2012-09-16
Source:WG14
Reference Document: N1635
Subject: Generic Functions

Summary

What the heck is a "generic function", and what are the sections of the standard covering how a user (or implementor) can write a stardard conforming program defining a "type generic function"?

I was trying to reconcile the rules in 7.1.4 Use of library functions allowing an implementation to define a function as a macro, and the user suppressing the macro by enclosing the name of the function in parentheses. But, I don't see how to make a function declaration, where a parameter can be any atomic type.

I've convinced myself, generic functions will take compiler magic. There is no way to declare them using C standard conforming code. Just like the type generic macros of <tgmath.h> in C99.

Somehow I missed this. I remember all the discussion of adding atomic operation to operators like += but somehow I missed the fact we were again adding in function specifications that cannot be implemented using standard C. I thought we were adding type generic macros. Sigh ...

I've been told that the discussion included talk about a proposal to recast them as generic macros, but that never happened so we ended up with generic functions through the back door without much explication.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Redefine the atomic type generic functions as type generic macros. Define the underlying functions to which the type generic macros expand.


Oct 2012 meeting

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

7.17.1 add a new paragraph after paragraph 5:

It is unspecified whether any generic function declared in stdatomic.h is a macro or an identifier declared with external linkage. If a macro definition is suppressed in order to access an actual function, or a program defines an external identifier with the name of a generic function, the behavior is undefined.

J.2 add:

The macro definition of a generic function is suppressed in order to access an actual function (7.17.1)


DR 418 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 420, or summary at top



DR 420

DR 419 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 421, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1647
Subject: sytax error in specification of for-statement

Summary

The standard lists two different forms for the for-statement in 6.8.5p1:

for ( expression[opt] ; expression[opt] ; expression[opt] ) statement
for ( declaration expression[opt] ; expression[opt] ) statement

whereas later in 6.8.5.3 these two forms are subsumed in a third form by:

for ( clause-1 ; expression-2 ; expression-3 ) statement

Obviously the second form above is a typo and doesn't fit within this third form, the semantic that is given in 6.8.5.3 and to common practice in existing compilers.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Replace the second form in 6.8.5p1 and A.2.3 by the intended one:

for ( declaration expression[opt] ; expression[opt] ; expression[opt] ) statement

Oct 2012 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

The second form of for-statement is not a typo. The syntax for "declaration", in 6.7 paragraph 1, includes an optional init-declarator-list and a trailing semicolon.


DR 419 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 421, or summary at top



DR 421

DR 420 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 422, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1648
Subject: initialization of atomic_flag

Summary

C11 expresses the intention to have atomic_flag as a primitive that should allow to emulate all other atomic types and operations, 7.17.8 p3 in a note says:

The remaining types can be emulated with atomic_flag, though with less than ideal properties.

With the current semantic for the initialization of atomic_flag this goal cannot be achieved.

Details

This is a very good concept as far as I can see, but I have one problem to achieve this, initialization. The phrasing for atomic types in general and for atomic_flag are different. For atomic_flag we have:

An atomic_flag that is not explicitly initialized with ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT is initially in an indeterminate state.

The problem is how to emulate an atomic type with atomic_flag during initialization. Say we emulate with something like

struct atomic_int_struct {
  atomic_flag cat;
  int val;
};

Then the ATOMIC_VAR_INIT macro could simply look like:

#define ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(V) { .cat = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT, .val = (V), }

But if I’d have a variable of atomic_int_struct with static storage duration

struct atomic_int_struct v;

is supposed to do the right thing, namely to guarantee that v has a valid state at startup, so it should contain a 0 for .val, and .cat must be in a determinate state. Since all atomic operations should work without problems on v, the state of .cat can’t be anything else than “clear”.

Now looking into the possible implementations of atomic_flag in assembler I didn’t yet meet a processor where the “clear” state would not be naturally represented by an all 0 value. So I guess in any reasonable implementation we would just have

#define ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT { 0 }

(or some equivalent formulation.)

If this is so, why ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT at all? Why not phrasing the same as for the other atomic types

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Eliminate the mention of ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT in 7.17.1p3, B.16 and the index.

Proposed change for the initialization of atomic_flag, 7.17.8p4:

The default initializer { 0 } may be used to initialize an atomic_flag to the clear state. An atomic_flag object with automatic storage duration that is not explicitly initialized using { 0 } is initially in an indeterminate state; however, the default (zero) initialization for objects with static or thread-local storage duration initializes an atomic_flag to the clear state.
EXAMPLE
atomic_flag guard = { 0 };

If the committee would want to keep the macro ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT arround, a partial alternative to the above text would be to modify the text in 7.17.1

ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT
which expands to a default initializer ({ 0 } or equivalent) for an object of type atomic_flag.


Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2013 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

The standard deliberately does not specify values for the clear and set states of atomic_flag objects in order to support the widest possible set of architectures. As such, the committee does not believe that this is a defect.


DR 420 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 422, or summary at top



DR 422

DR 421 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 423, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1649
Subject: initialization of atomic types

Summary

The current version of the standard doesn't specify to which value an atomic object should be initialized if it is initialized by default.

An atomic object with automatic storage duration that is not explicitly initialized using ATOMIC_VAR_INIT is initially in an indeterminate state; however, the default (zero) initialization for objects with static or thread-local storage duration is guaranteed to produce a valid state.

The mentioned valid state (in contrast to the indeterminate state mentioned before) is thus a determinate state, but the value that is stored is not mentioned explicitly. In the introduced language of the standard it is no definition of a "determinate state". It could be an "implementation-defined value", just an "unspecified value" or a default (zero) initialization. Everything suggests the later, that this would be the same value as for initializing a variable of the underlying base type by { 0 }. But I think it would have helped to make that explicit.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Proposed change for the initialization of atomic objects, 7.17.2.1p2:

An atomic object with automatic storage duration that is not explicitly initialized using ATOMIC_VAR_INIT is initially in an indeterminate state; however, the default (zero) initialization for objects with static or thread-local storage duration is guaranteed to produce a valid state that corresponds to the value of a zero initialized object of the unqualified base type.
EXAMPLE All three of the following objects initially have an observable value of 0.
_Atomic(unsigned) A = { 0 };
_Atomic(unsigned) B = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0u);
static _Atomic(unsigned) C;


Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2013 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

ATOMIC_VAR_INIT is required to initialize an atomic object to a known value. This value is defined to be valid but is unspecified in order to support the widest possible set of architectures. This is not a defect.


DR 421 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 423, or summary at top



DR 423

DR 422 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 424, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1650
Subject: Defect Report relative to n1570: underspecification for qualified rvalues

Summary

The dealing of rvalues with qualified types is largely underspecified in all versions of the C standard. This didn't surface as a problem until C11, since until then the type of an expression was not observable but only its value.

With C11 now a problem arises for type generic primary expressions; with _Generic type qualifications of values have become observable.

The standard in any of its versions has not much to say when it comes to qualified types for rvalues. They definitively do exist, since the cast operator (6.5.4p2) explicitly specifies that the type could be qualified. That section on casts also has the only indication that relates to rvalues. There is a footnote (thus not normative) that says

89) A cast does not yield an lvalue. Thus, a cast to a qualified type has the same effect as a cast to the unqualified version of the type.

That could mean two things:

  1. the effective type of the resulting rvalue is unqualified
  2. all operators that will accept the rvalue as an operand will act all the same whether the type is qualified or not

doing some tests I have found that clang and gcc disagree on this point. (gcc doesn't have _Generic, yet, but other builtins to observe types)

clang seems to implement 1., gcc 2. They agree for lvalues like this

_Generic((double const){ 0 },
         default: 0,
         double const: 1)

both evaluate it to 1.

They disagree on the outcome for rvalues

_Generic((double const)0,
         default: 0,
         double const: 1)

clang gives 0, gcc gives 1.

(for gcc all with caution that it doesn't have _Generic yet, but that this was obtained using an emulation of it by means of other gcc builtins)

So that situation can easily lead to simple programs that have a behavior that depends on an undocumented choice and thus observe unspecified behavior.

Discussion

Importance of observability of qualifiers

This is not a defect of the _Generic construct itself. The intention is clearly to distinguish all types (with the exception of VM types) that are not compatible, thus to allow to distinguish all 8 different forms of qualifications of a type (resp. 16 for pointer types) that can be obtained from the qualifiers _Atomic, const, volatile (and restrict).

For type generic expressions that are intended to operate on lvalues, such distinction can be crucial for any of the four qualifiers:

Lvalue conversion of the controlling expression of the generic selection is not a solution

Up to now, the conversions of 6.3.2.1 do not apply to primary expressions but only to operators. E.g in the following

double A[5];
double (*B)[5] = &A;
double (*C)[5] = &(A);

B and C should be initialized to the same value, the address of A. If in (A) the primary expression () would enforce a decay of the array to a pointer (and thus to an rvalue) the initialization expression for C would be a constraint violation.

So it seems obvious that the conversions in 6.3.2 ("Other Operands") are not intended to be applied to primary expressions.

Also the conversions in 6.3.2 are not consistent with respect to qualifiers. The only conversion that explicitly drops qualifiers is lvalue conversion (6.3.2.1p2). Array to pointer conversion (6.3.2.1p3) doesn't change qualifiers on the base type. Pointer conversion then, in 6.3.2.3, may add qualifiers to the base type when converting.

Origin

Two different constructs can be at the origin of a qualification of an rvalue:

Both constructs explicitly allow for qualifiers to be applied to the type. In particular 6.7.6.3p15 emphasizes (and constrains) the return type of function specifications to have compatible types, thus indicating that the qualification of the return type bares a semantic meaning.

Operations

If we suppose that any rvalue expression carries its qualification further, other operations (e.g unary or binary +) could or could not result in qualified rvalues. The conversion rules in 6.3 and in particular the usual arithmetic conversions in 6.3.1.8 that allow to determine a common real type don't specify rules to deal with qualifiers.

It seems that a lot of compilers already warn on such "superfluous" qualifications, but in view of type generic primary expression it is not clear that such warnings are still adequate.

Comparison to C++

C++ had to resolve this problem since its beginnings, because the feature of function overloading together with references of rvalues had made rvalue types and their qualifications observable.

Interestingly, to solve the problem the C++ refers to the C standard, claiming that C would drop all qualifiers for rvalue expressions that have scalar base type. It does this without refering to a particular text in the C standard, and in fact it can't since there doesn't seem to be such text.

The actual solution in C++ is thus that all rvalue expressions of non-scalar types are const-qualified and that those of scalar types are unqualified. In view that scalar types are exactly those types that are allowed to have cast operators that qualify the type, all of this looks like a useless additional complication of the issue.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this defect, and the proposed solutions (as below or even differently) probably will need some discussion and investigations about their implications on existing code before a consensus could be reached.

Proposal 1: Require the implementation to specify its choice

This is (to my opinion) the worst solution, because the potential different code paths that an application code could take are numerous. There are 4 different qualifiers to handle and code that would have to rely on enumerating all combinations of different generic choices can quickly become a maintenance nightmare.

Also, implementations that chose to keep qualifiers on rvalues would have to decide (and document) by their own what the rules would be when operators are applied to such qualified rvalues.

Proposal 2: Keep all qualifiers on types of rvalue expressions

For this solution in should be then elaborated how operators handle qualifiers. A natural way would be to accumulate qualifiers from operands with different qualifiers.

An important issue with this approach is the rapidly increasing number of cases, in particular 16 for pointer types. To keep the number of cases low when programming with type generic expressions we would need a generic tool for the following:

How to drop qualifiers for type generic expressions? Or alternatively add all qualifiers?

For arithmetic types with base type other than _Bool, char, or short something like the following would be useful:

+(X)                                 // if unary plus drops all qualifiers
(X) + (int const volatile _Atomic)0  // if qualifiers accumulate
This strategy wouldn't work for the narrow types, because the are promoted to signed or unsigned.

Proposal 3: Require the implementation to provide a feature test macro

This solution would already be a bit better than the previous one, since applications that compose type generic macros could select between two (or several) implementations. But the main problems (complexity and underspecification of operations) would remain.

Proposal 4: Drop all qualifiers from the controlling expression of the generic selection

This is not an ideal solution, since it would remove a lot of expressiveness from the generic selection construct. Lvalues could no be distinguished for their qualifiers:

void f(double*);
#define F(X) _Generic((X), double: f)(&(X))

double const A = 42;
F(A);

Here dropping the qualifiers of A would result in a choice of f and in the evaluation of f(&A). In case that f modifies its argument object (which we can't know) this would lead to undefined behavior.

Not dropping the qualifiers would lead to a compile time constraint violation, because none of the types in the type generic expression matches. So here an implementation would be forced to issue a diagnostic, whereas if qualifiers are dropped the diagnostic is not mandatory.

Proposal 5: Drop all qualifiers of rvalues

This solution seems the one that is chosen by clang. It is probably the easiest to specify. As mentioned above it has the disadvantage that the two very similar expressions (int const){0} and (int const)0 have different types.

Some clarification should be added to the standard, though.

6.5.1.1, modify as follows:
EXAMPLE The cbrt type-generic macro could be implemented as follows. Here the prefix operator + in the selection expression ensures that lvalue conversion on arithmetic types is performed such that e.g lvalues of type float const select cbrtf and not the default cbrt.

#define cbrt(X) _Generic(+(X), \
long double: cbrtl,            \
default: cbrt,                 \
float: cbrtf                   \
)(X)

6.5.2.2, add after p1: The type of a function call is the return type of the function without any qualifiers.

6.5.4, add after p2: The type of a cast expression of a qualified scalar type is the scalar type without any qualifiers.

6.7.63, change p15, first sentence: For two function types to be compatible, the unqualified versions of both return types shall be compatible.

C11: When introduced like this, this will invalidate some valid C11 programs, since some type generic expression might behave differently. The faster such corrigendum is adopted the less likely it is that such programs exist.

Proposal 6: Add a const qualifier to all types for rvalues

Analogous as in the case above it has the disadvantage that the two very similar expressions (int){0} and (int)0 have different types.

This is my favorite solution, since it also "repairs" another issue that I am unconfortable with: the problem of array decay in objects with temporary lifetime:

  struct T { double a[4]; } A;
  struct T f(void) { return (struct T){ 0 }; }
  double g0(double* x) { return *x; }
  ...
  g0(f().a);

Here f() is an rvalue that results in an object of temporary lifetime struct T and then f().a decays to a double*. Semantically a better solution would be that it decays to a double const* since a modification of the value is not allowed (undefined behavior). Already with C99 it would be clearer to declare g1 as:

  double g1(double const* x) { return *x; }

If f() would be of type struct T const, f().a would decay to a double const*. Then a call of g0 would be a constraint violation and g1 would have to be used.

The necessary changes to the standard would be something like:

6.5.1.1, modify as follows:
EXAMPLE The cbrt type-generic macro could be implemented as follows. Here the prefix operator + in the selection expression ensures that lvalue conversion on arithmetic types is performed such that e.g lvalues of type float select cbrtf and not the default cbrt.

#define cbrt(X) _Generic(+(X), \
long double const: cbrtl,      \
default: cbrt,                 \
float const: cbrtf             \
)(X)

6.5.2.2, add after p1: The type of a function call is the const-qualified return type of the function without any other qualifiers.

6.5.4, add after p2: The type of a cast expression of a qualified scalar type is the const-qualified scalar type without any other qualifiers.

The third addedum would be the same as in the previous case:

6.7.63, change p15, first sentence: For two function types to be compatible, the unqualified versions of both return types shall be compatible.

C11: When introduced like this, this will invalidate some valid C11 programs, since some type generic expression might behave differently. The faster such corrigendum is adopted the less likely it is that such programs exist.

C99: When introduced like this, this will invalidate some valid C99 programs that pass rvalue pointers as presented above to function parameters that are not const-qualified but where the called function then never modifies the object of temporary lifetime behind the pointer. Unless for very old legacy functions (from before the introduction of const to the language) such interfaces should be able to use the "correct" const-qualification, or they could be overloaded with a type generic interface that takes care of that issue.


Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion


Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The paper N1863 was provided and its Suggested Technical Suggestion was adopted.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 6.5.4.p5 from

Preceding an expression by a parenthesized type name converts the value of the expression to the named type. This construction is called a cast104. A cast that specifies no conversion has no effect on the type or value of an expression.

104) A cast does not yield an lvalue. Thus, a cast to a qualified type has the same effect as a cast to the unqualified version of that type.

to
Preceding an expression by a parenthesized type name converts the value of the expression to the unqualified version of the named type. This construction is called a cast104. A cast that specifies no conversion has no effect on the type or value of an expression.

104) A cast does not yield an lvalue.

Change 6.7.6.3 p5 from
... then the type specified for ident is “derived-declarator-type-list function returning T”.
to
... then the type specified for ident is “derived-declarator-type-list function returning the unqualified version of T”.

DR 422 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 424, or summary at top



DR 424

DR 423 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 425, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1651
Subject: underspecification of tss_t

Summary

Section 7.26.6 “Thread-specific storage functions” of C11 is severely underspecified since it uses terms that are not introduced (so far) in the context of C. This is really a pity, since POSIX also has pthread_key_t that is completely feature equivalent and for which the specification is much more complete.

Jacob Navia had observed that at several occasions in comp.std.c but it seems that he had not got enough attention such that this had made it in a defect report.

The tss_create function creates a thread-specific storage pointer with destructor dtor, which may be null.

The main problem is that it is nowhere explained/defined

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

I think several paragraphs should be added after the one above:

The effect is that for each thread that has the thread specific storage corresponding to key set to a value x that is not null, the destructor function *dtor is called with dtor(x) before the thread exits.
This call to dtor is executed in the context of the same thread; it is sequenced after the return statement or the call to thrd_exit that terminates the thread and before any return from thrd_join of a waiter for this same thread. If there are several thread specific storages for the same thread their destructor functions are called in an unspecific order but with a sequence point between each of these function calls.
If a destructor function for key issues calls to tss_set, tss_get or tss_delete with the same key the behavior is undefined.
tss_set can be used to set the value of a thread specific storage for a different key key2 that had not been set before or that has been processed with a call to the corresponding destructor.

By that the set of thread specific storages for a given thread may change during the execution of the corresponding destructors.

If after processing all tss that are active at the return of the thread function or at the end of thrd_exit there are still tss that are active the procedure of calling destructors is iterated. An implementation may bind the maximum number such of supplementary iterations by TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS.

A second problem is that there are two functionalities that are easily mixed up and which interrelationship should be clarified: the destructor that is called (let us suppose this) at exit of a thread, and tss_delete that deletes a thread specific storage for all running threads. I think something like the following should be added in 7.26.6.2 after para 2:

The deletion of key will not change the observable behavior of any of the active threads. If tss_delete is called for key and there is a thread that has a non-null value for key that has passed a terminating return statement or call to thrd_exit but not yet finished the processing of all its tss destructors, the behavior is undefined.

Oct 2012 meeting

Committee Discussion

These issues are covered under DR 416. See discussion there.

Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

In addition to DR 416 this report suggests defining as undefined behavior the interaction of thrd_exit and tss_delete.
Oct 2013 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

The issues raised herein have been considered in conjunction with DR 416 and are jointly resolved in that DR's Proposed Technical Corrigendum.


DR 423 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 425, or summary at top



DR 425

DR 424 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 426, or summary at top


Submitter: Jens Gustedt
Submission Date: 2012-10-08
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1653
Subject: no specification for the access to variables with temporary lifetime

Summary

Section 6.2.4 in p4 and p5 requires implementation defined behavior for accessing objects with thread local or automatic storage from different threads than where they are defined. No such mention is done for objects with temporary lifetime in p8. Can they be accessed by other threads? Is this property handled similar to the property for automatic storage duration? Or should this simply be forbidden?

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Add to the end of 6.2.4 p8:

The result of attempting to indirectly access an object with temporary lifetime from a thread other than the one with which the object is associated is implementation-defined.

Add to 7.26.1p3:

__STDC_THREAD_TEMPORARY_VISIBLE__
which expands to 1 if objects of temporary lifetime are visible to other threads and to 0 otherwise.

Oct 2012 meeting

Proposed Committee Response

Objects with temporary lifetime are defined in 6.2.4 paragraph 8 to be those with automatic storage duration, and so inter-thread access is implementation defined. No change needed.


DR 424 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 426, or summary at top



DR 426

DR 425 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 428, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
Submission Date: 2013-01-07
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1670
Subject: G.5.1: -yv and -x/v are ambiguous

Summary

The tables in G.5.1 have the mathematical formulas -yv and -x/v. I believe that they are ambiguous as they could have two meanings:

I believe it matters for at least these cases:

  1. The two operands are different NaNs, negate flips the sign of a NaN, and the result of * and / depends upon the sign and value of the NaN.
  2. The result is a NaN from non-NaN operands, negate does not flip the sign of a NaN, while both * and / set the sign of the result as the XOR of the signs of the operands.
  3. All operands are non-NaN, the result is inexact and non-NaN, and a rounding that is not symmetric about zero is in effect.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In the table in G.5.1 #2, change

-yv

to

(-y)v
in three places.

In the table in G.5.1 #3, change

-x/v

to

(-x)/v
in two places.


DR 425 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 428, or summary at top



DR 427

DR 409 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 439, or summary at top


Submitter: Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>
Submission Date: 2013-01-24
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1671
Subject: Function Parameter and Return Value Assignments

Summary
The wording for the the assignments of function arguments to function parameters and for the assignment of a return statement's expression to the value of the function call can potentially be confused.

6.5.2.2p2:

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall have a type such that its value may be assigned to an object with the unqualified version of the type of its corresponding parameter.

The appearance of "may be assigned" can lead to the question (#1) of whether or not the constraints and semantics under both 6.5.16 and 6.5.16.1 might apply. The Forward references indicate 6.5.16.1, so this question might be unwarranted.

The appearance of "unqualified version of the type of its corresponding parameter" does not match 6.9.1p10, which doesn't use "unqualified" (see below).

6.5.16p2:

An assignment operator shall have a modifiable lvalue as its left operand.

If 6.5.2.2p2's mention of "assigned" implies this constraint as a secondary constraint, it is not clear which "modifiable lvalue" or even "lvalue" would ever satisfy the constraint. The "modifiable lvalue" does not appear to be the parameter, because:

6.7.3p4:

The properties associated with qualified types are meaningful only for expressions that are lvalues.132)
132) The implementation may place a const object that is not volatile in a read-only region of storage. Moreover, the implementation need not allocate storage for such an object if its address is never used.

This can suggest that 6.5.2.2p2's "an object with the unqualified version of the type" implies an lvalue, but (question #2) is it a modifiable lvalue? Question #3: If the type is a structure or union type with a const-qualified member (possibly via recursion), are the members considered to be unqualified, too? If so, this is an important difference from pointer types where the referenced type (or its referenced type, recursively) would not be considered unqualified. Also worth consideration would be an array object (which is not qualified) having elements matching such a structure or union type (possibly via recursion).

The return type of a function might be const-qualified, or might be a structure or union type having such a member (possibly via recursion). Question #4: Should the return type of a function be adjusted to be an unqualified version of the type? Such an adjustment might have implications for type compatibility and composite type and might be better off left alone. (const is being used for illustrative purposes, but all type qualifiers can equally be considerations.)

6.8.6.4p3:

If a return statement with an expression is executed, the value of the expression is returned to the caller as the value of the function call expression. If the expression has a type different from the return type of the function in which it appears, the value is converted as if by assignment to an object having the return type of the function.160)
160) The return statement is not an assignment. The overlap restriction of subclause 6.5.16.1 does not apply to the case of function return. The representation of floating-point values may have wider range or precision than implied by the type; a cast may be used to remove this extra range and precision.

If the return type of a function is const-qualified, or is a structure or union type having such a member (possibly via recursion), then "as if by assignment" works for 6.5.16.1, but the constraint of 6.5.16p2 requires a "modifiable lvalue".

The footnote reminds us that a return statement with an expression is not an assignment, but it is not clear that only 6.5.16.1 applies for the "as if by assignment" case.

6.9.1p10:

On entry to the function, the size expressions of each variably modified parameter are evaluated and the value of each argument expression is converted to the type of the corresponding parameter as if by assignment. (Array expressions and function designators as arguments were converted to pointers before the call.)

6.9.1p11:

After all parameters have been assigned, the compound statement that constitutes the body of the function definition is executed.

A const-qualified lvalue cannot normally be assigned-to. An lvalue for an object having a structure or union type containing a const-qualified member (possible via recursion) cannot normally be assigned-to.

6.9.1p10 doesn't match the use of "unqualified" in 6.5.2.2p2 (see above).

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Sun c99 and GCC disagree on the return statement's semantics.

Change 6.5.2.2p2 to:

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall be such that it satifies the constraints of simple assignment when considering the argument to be the right operand and considering the left operand to have the unqualified version of the type of the corresponding parameter.

(Loosely establishes an example for "as if by simple assignment".)

Change 6.8.6.4p3 to:

If a return statement with an expression is executed, the value of the expression is returned to the caller as the value of the function call expression. If the expression has a type different from the return type of the function in which it appears, the value is converted as if by simple assignment to an object having the unqualified version of the return type of the function.160)

Change 6.9.1p10 to:

On entry to the function, the size expressions of each variably modified parameter are evaluated in an unspecified order, the value of each argument expression is converted to the unqualified version of the type of the corresponding parameter as if by simple assignment, then each converted value becomes the initial value for the corresponding parameter. (Array expressions and function designators as arguments were converted to pointers before the call.)

Change 6.9.1p11 to:

After all parameters have initial values, the compound statement that constitutes the body of the function definition is executed.

Add bullet to J.1

- The order in which the size expressions of variably modified parameters are evaluated upon function entry (6.9.1).


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The issue of conversion has to do with whether there are differing promotions and type conversions that would apply when constructing an argument list that would not occur if these expressions were used as initializers in a declaration.

Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The committee concluded after a discussion that there were no promotion or type conversion issues raised by the proposed wording above, and that the following should be adopted as a Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum (superceded)

In 6.5.2.2p2 change:

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall have a type such that its value may be assigned to an object with the unqualified version of the type of its corresponding parameter.

to

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall have a type such that its value may be used to initialize an object having the type of its corresponding parameter.

In 6.5.2.2p4 change

An argument may be an expression of any complete object type. In preparing for the call to a function, the arguments are evaluated, and each parameter is assigned the value of the corresponding argument.

to

An argument may be an expression of any complete object type. In preparing for the call to a function, the arguments are evaluated, and each parameter is initialized to the value of the corresponding argument.

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The goal of preserving conversions as if by assignment is fulfilled by the definition of initialization found in 6.7.9 Initialization paragraph 11. Another instance of assignment that should be changed was found in 6.9.1 Function Definitions paragraph 11.

It was noted that implicit conversion is described only in terms of assignment (6.5.16.1). There was broad agreement that committee members and implementors are unconfused by the intent of the standard here despite the inconsistencies. It was also noted that initialization is distinct from assignment and, in the case of non-lock free atomic implications, this requires operational differences and as such that it is worth further consideration. As such, the following should be regarded as a possible direction.

In 6.5.2.2p2 change:

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall have a type such that its value may be assigned to an object with the unqualified version of the type of its corresponding parameter.

to

If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that includes a prototype, the number of arguments shall agree with the number of parameters. Each argument shall have a type such that its value may be used to initialize an object having the type of its corresponding parameter.

In 6.5.2.2p4 change

An argument may be an expression of any complete object type. In preparing for the call to a function, the arguments are evaluated, and each parameter is assigned the value of the corresponding argument.

to

An argument may be an expression of any complete object type. In preparing for the call to a function, the arguments are evaluated, and each parameter is initialized to the value of the corresponding argument.

In 6.9.1 paragraph 11 change:

After all parameters have been assigned,

to

After all parameters have been initialized,

Oct 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Committee Response

The committee believes that the primary issue of return value semantics was a consequence of a mistake in the implementation of gcc which has been rectified, and that further the treatment of qualifiers has been clarified in the Proposed Technical Corrigendum of DR 423. The treatment of initialization in the Standard is clear enough that no errors have been observed in implementations, and as such further clarification is unwarranted at this time.

DR 409 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 439, or summary at top



DR 428

DR 426 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 429, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2013-02-11
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1672
Subject: runtime-constraint issue with sprintf family of routines in Annex K

Summary

snprintf_s  (Annex K.3.5.3.5)

In the "Runtime-constraints" section, K.3.5.3.5p2 first sentence it says:

"Neither s nor format shall be a null pointer. n shall neither equal
zero nor be greater than RSIZE_MAX."

So,
    if (n == 0 || n > RSIZE_MAX)
        /* runtime constraints violation */

This is clear. However the next paragraph K.3.5.3.5p3, says this about "s":

"If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
pointer and n is greater than zero and less than RSIZE_MAX, then the
snprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character."

So, it takes action when (n < RSIZE_MAX)

        if (s != NULL && n > 0 && n < RSIZE_MAX)
            s[0] = '\0';

Question here is, what if n equals RSIZE_MAX? Should we still reset
s[0]?

If I were to say this looks like a typo, would WG14 agree with me?

That is the text of K.3.5.3.5p3 should be:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  snprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.
 
This issue applies to all the sprintf family of routines in Annex K 

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

snprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.5p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  snprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

sprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.6p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  sprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

vsnprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.12p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  vsnprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

vsprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.13p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  vsprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

snprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.5p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  snprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

sprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.6p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  sprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

vsnprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.12p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  vsnprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.

vsprintf_s
Replace K.3.5.3.13p3 with:

  If there is a runtime-constraint violation, then if s is not a null
  pointer and n is greater than zero and not greater than RSIZE_MAX, then the
  vsprintf_s function sets s[0] to the null character.


DR 426 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 429, or summary at top



DR 429

DR 428 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 430, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2013-02-11
Source: WG 14
Reference Documents: N1673  N1748
Subject: Should gets_s discard next input line when (s == NULL) ?

Summary

gets_s Annex K.3.5.4.1p2 says:

"If there is a runtime-constraint violation, s[0] is set to the null
character, and characters are read and discarded from stdin until a
new-line character is read, or end-of-file or a read error occurs."

The runtime-constraint violation here can be caused by a null "s"
pointer.  Should we discard the next input line even if (s == NULL) ?

The way it is written, it looks like the answer is yes.  However it is
not clear to us that that was the intent.  Note also that s[0] cannot be
set to the null character when s==NULL.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In Annex K.3.5.4.1, replace paragraph 3 with the following:
If there is a runtime-constraint violation, characters are read and discarded from stdin until a new-line character is read, or end-of-file or a read error occurs, and if s is not a null pointer s[0] is set to the null character.


DR 428 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 430, or summary at top



DR 430

DR 429 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 431, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2013-02-11
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1674
Subject: getenv_s, maxsize should be allowed to be zero

Summary

getenv_s, Annex K.3.6.2.1p2 under Runtime-constraints says:

  name shall not be a null pointer. maxsize shall neither equal zero nor be greater than
  RSIZE_MAX. If maxsize is not equal to zero, then value shall not be a null pointer.

Question here is, if maxsize really cannot be 0.  If it cannot be
zero, why does the 2nd sentence mention the condition that (maxsize != 0)?

If maxsize can be 0, it would allow the value to be a null pointer
which allows what is described in 6.6.2.1 of TR24731 (N1173) cleanly:

  The getenv_s function can also be used to get the size needed to
  represent the result. This allows the programmer to first call
  getenv_s to get the size, then allocate a buffer to hold the result,
  and then call getenv_s again to actually obtain the result."

if maxsize can be zero, then I think we would get the length of string thusly:
    getenv_s(&len, NULL, 0, "HOME");

However, since maxsize cannot be 0 which also requires value not to be
a null pointer, we would need to do something like this:
    getenv_s(&len, something, 1, "HOME");

AFAICT, getnenv_s as specified in C11 exactly matches what was in TR24731 (N1172).
What is in TR24731 (N1172) does not coincide with what is in the rational
for TR24731 (N1173).  The wording in TR24731 (N1172) (and by extension
C11) is awkward and it certainly looks like an update intended to correspond to
the rational for TR24731 (N1173) was either misapplied or not applied.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Replace Annex K.3.6.2.1p2 second sentence with:

maxsize shall not be greater than RSIZE_MAX.

K.3.6.2.1p2 would then read thusly:

name shall not be a null pointer.  maxsize shall not be greater than
RSIZE_MAX.  If maxsize is not equal to zero, then value shall not be a null pointer.


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Replace Annex K.3.6.2.1p2 second sentence with:

maxsize shall not be greater than RSIZE_MAX.

K.3.6.2.1p2 would then read thusly:

name shall not be a null pointer.  maxsize shall not be greater than
RSIZE_MAX.  If maxsize is not equal to zero, then value shall not be a null pointer.


DR 429 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 431, or summary at top



DR 431

DR 430 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 432, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2013-02-21
Source: WG14
Reference Document: N1675
Subject: atomic_compare_exchange: What does it mean to say two structs compare equal?

Summary

7.17.7.4 The atomic_compare_exchange generic functions

7.17.7.4p2 Description

  Atomically, compares the value pointed to by object for equality with
  that in expected, and if true, replaces the value pointed to by object
  with desired, and if false, updates the value in expected with the
  value pointed to by object.

When object is an atomic struct type and expected is the corresponding
non-atomic struct type.  What does it mean to compare two struct types
as equal?

Where does the C standard define what it means for two objects of struct
type to be equal?

7.17.7.4 NOTE 1 gives an example using memcmp on how the test for
equality might be defined.  But that is non-normative.

But the padding bytes in a struct have unspecified values (6.2.6.1p6)

7.24.4.1 The memcmp function, footnote 310 reminds us that the contents
of padding in a struct is indeterminate.

Even integers can have padding bits, whose values are unspecified (6.2.6.2p1)

A similar issue probably occurs for Atomic union types.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Either define equality of objects of struct type, add a restriction disallowing
use of atomic structs as arguments for the atomic_compare_exchange generic functions,
or note that atomic_compare_exchange generic functions for objects of atomic
struct type results in undefined behavior.


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion


Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

As requested, the paper N1864 was written and provided. From our C++ liaison, however, it was learned that corresponding behavior is well defined and is in use. Further investigation revealed that atomic_compare_exchange in C++ is and has been explicitly defined to be that of bit comparison. C11 defines it as value comparison.

It was noted that bit comparison for atomic bool would not give the expected answer if differing non-zero "true" values were compared. It was also noted that bit comparison exposes padding bits, whereas lock bits would be required to be discarded, leading to code that might work on one implementation of an architecture but fail on another.

A new paper was solicited.

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The paper N1906 was provided and discussed and its Proposed Technical Corrigendum was adopted. This resolution clarifies that

Proposed Committee Response

atomic_compare_exchange is now aligned with C++11 as operating on bit representations. Where these representations are unpadded integer or structure values, the operation is well defined. The type bool is padded in many implementations.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 7.17.7.4p2 replace

Atomically, compares the value pointed to by object for equality with that in expected, and if true, replaces the value pointed to by object with desired, and if false, updates the value in expected with the value pointed to by object
with:
Atomically, compares the contents of the memory pointed to by object for equality with that in expected, and if true, replaces the contents of the memory pointed to by object with expected, and if false, updates the value in expected with the value pointed to by object.

DR 430 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 432, or summary at top



DR 432

DR 431 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 433, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2013-03-07
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1677
Subject: Possible defect report: Is 0.0 required to be a representable value?

There are many places in C11 that assume a floating-point zero value, e.g., 0.0, is representable.

There are many places in C11 that allow for a representable floating-point zero value.

The C Rationale in its discussion of 5.2.4.2.2 has:

Note that the floating-point model adopted permits all common representations, including sign-magnitude and two's-complement, but precludes a logarithmic implementation.

The C89 Committee also endeavored to accommodate the IEEE 754 floating-point standard by not adopting any constraints on floating-point which were contrary to that standard.

However, if one carefully reads 5.2.4.2.2 Characteristics of floating types <float.h>, #2 and #3, one finds that zero is not required to be representable. As I read those paragraphs, normalized floating-point numbers are the only things required to be contained in floating types. Subnormal floating-point numbers, unnormalized floating-point numbers, infinities, and NaNs are additional (optional) things that may be contained in floating types. Zero is not mentioned explicitly.

So, it appears that some parts of C11 require that floating-point zeros be representable, while other parts do not require that they be representable.

I think that the first sentance in 5.2.4.2.2 #3 should be changed to:

Floating types shall be able to represent normalized floating-point numbers (f1 > 0 if x != 0) and (positive or unsigned) zero. In addition, floating types may be able to contain other kinds of floating-point numbers, such as negative zero and subnormal ...

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

The first sentance in 5.2.4.2.2 #3 should be changed to:

Floating types shall be able to represent normalized floating-point numbers (f1 > 0) and (positive or unsigned) zero. In addition, floating types may be able to contain other kinds of floating-point numbers, such as negative zero and subnormal ...


DR 431 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 433, or summary at top



DR 433

DR 432 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 434, or summary at top


Submitter: Douglas Walls
Submission Date: 2013-03-12
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1683 N1771
Subject: Issue with constraints for wide character function arguments involving RSIZE_MAX

Summary

K.3.7.2.2 The strncat_s function
The strncat_s() has a constraint that neither s1max nor n shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX.
Both s1max and n are defined as representing a number of char sized characters.

K.3.9.2.1.2 The wcsncpy_s function
The same constraint is given for the function the wcsncat_s() function, i.e. that neither s1max nor n shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX.  For wcsncat_s(), s1max and n are defined as representing a number of wchar_t sized characters.  On most implementations the size of a wide characters is many times the size of a char.  On Solaris it is 4 time the size.

K.3.4 Integer types <stdint.h> is defined as follows
1 The header <stdint.h> defines a macro.
2 The macro is

      RSIZE_MAX

which expands to a value 386) of type size_t. Functions that have parameters of type rsize_t consider it a runtime-constraint violation if the values of those parameters are greater than RSIZE_MAX.

386) The macro RSIZE_MAX need not expand to a constant expression.

Recommended practice

3 Extremely large object sizes are frequently a sign that an object's size was calculated incorrectly. For example, negative numbers appear as very large positive numbers when converted to an unsigned type like size_t. Also, some implementations do not support objects as large as the maximum value that can be represented by type size_t.

4 For those reasons, it is sometimes beneficial to restrict the range of object sizes to detect programming errors. For implementations targeting machines with large address spaces, it is recommended that RSIZE_MAX be defined as the smaller of the size of the largest object supported or (SIZE_MAX >> 1), even if this limit is smaller than the size of some legitimate, but very large, objects. Implementations targeting machines with small address spaces may wish to define RSIZE_MAX as SIZE_MAX, which means that there is no object size that is considered a runtime-constraint violation.



The recommended practice implies RSIZE_MAX represents maximum object sizes.

Footnote 386) implies an implementation can adjust what RSIZE_MAX expands to depending upon the context in which it is being used.  But what I don't understand is how, the user can take advantage of RSIZE_MAX to check the values of n and s1max prior to calling the function wcsncpy_s in order to avoid violating the runtime constraint error.  There is no context in which the implementation can expand RSIZE_MAX to the value they need.

Example:

  if ((s1max <= RSIZE_MAX) & (n <= RSIZE_MAX))
     error = wcsncpy_s (s1, s1max, s2 n);  // Assume no other runtime constraints
     if (error != 0) {
        // Since RSIZE_MAX is not a constant expression
        // Can this ever occur due to s1max or n being greater than RSIZE_MAX?
     }
  }

Is a conforming implementation allowed  to return a non-zero value for wcsncpy_s() in the example above?

N1147 the Rationale for TR24731 explains implementations might wish to adjust the value of RSIZE_MAX dynamically, and gives several scenarios for doing so. None of which seem germane to the questions raised here.



So what is the purpose of providing the macro RSIZE_MAX?
If the purpose is to limit all buffer sizes to RSIZE_MAX, it's use in constraints for wide character functions appear to be malformed.

The definitions of wcsncpy_s() and strncat_s() have constraints that treat their arguments that represent character counts as if those counts represent the size of an object that can be tested against RSIZE_MAX in the same way.  But those character counts represent characters of very different sizes.  And thus very different object sizes.  Maybe the constraint error for wcsncpy_s() arguments smax1 and n should be rewritten as something like:

  Neither (s1max * sizeof(wchar_t)) nor (n * sizeof(wchar_t)) shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX.

Other functions where max argument represent the number of
wchar_t or multi-byte characters and may need similar changes
include:

mbstowcs_s
wcstombs_s
snwprintf_s
swprintf_s
swscanf_s
vsnwprintf_s
vswprintf_s
wcscpy_s
wcsncpy_s
wmemcpy_s
wmemmove_s
wcscat_s
wcstok_s
wcrtomb_s
mbsrtowcs_s
wcsrtombs_s

Suggested Technical Corrigendum


Apr 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

A "nor nor" typo in the Suggested Technical Corrigendum for K.3.9.3.2.2p12 was noticed and corrected in the Proposed Technical Corrigendum below.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum


K.3.6.5.1 The mbstowcs_s function

In K.3.6.5.1p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.6.5.1p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.6.5.2 The wcstombs_s function

In K.3.6.5.2p2, replace "then neither len nor dstmax shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX" with
"then neither len shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t) nor dstmax shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX".
In K.3.6.5.2p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX".

K.3.9.1.3 The snwprintf_s function

In K.3.9.1.3p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.1.3p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".  See DR 428

K.3.9.1.4 The swprintf_s function

In K.3.9.1.4p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.1.4p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".  See DR 428

K.3.9.1.8 The vsnwprintf_s function

In K.3.9.1.8p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.1.8p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".  See DR 428

K.3.9.1.9 The vswprintf_s function

In K.3.9.1.9p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.1.9p3, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".  See DR 428

K.3.9.2.1.1 The wcscpy_s function

In K.3.9.2.1.1p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.1.1p3, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.1.2 The wcsncpy_s function

In K.3.9.2.1.2p8, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.1.2p9, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.1.3 The wmemcpy_s function

In K.3.9.2.1.3p15, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.1.3p16, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.1.4 The wmemmove_s function

In K.3.9.2.1.4p20, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.1.4p21, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.2.1 The wcscat_s function

In K.3.9.2.2.1p3, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.2.1p4, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.2.2 The wcsncat_s function

In K.3.9.2.2.2p10, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.2.2.2p11, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.2.3.1 The wcstok_s function

In K.3.9.2.3.1p2, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".

K.3.9.3.2.1 The mbsrtowcs_s function

In K.3.9.3.2.1p3, replace "RSIZE_MAX" with "RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".
In K.3.9.3.2.1p4, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(wchar_t)".  See DR 428

K.3.9.3.2.2 The wcsrtombs_s function

In K.3.9.3.2.2p12, replace "then neither len nor dstmax shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX" with
"then neither len shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX/sizeof(whcar_t) nor dstmax shall be greater than RSIZE_MAX".
In K.3.9.3.2.2p13, replace "less than RSIZE_MAX" with "not greater than RSIZE_MAX".


DR 432 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 434, or summary at top



DR 434

DR 433 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 435, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2012-10-26
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1660 N1660
Subject:Possible defect report: Missing constraint w.r.t. Atomic

Summary

6.7.2.4 Atomic type specifiers, has in paragraph 2:

Atomic type specifiers shall not be used if the implementation does not support atomic types (see 6.10.8.3).

But, 6.7.3 Type qualifiers, has no similar constraint with respect to _Atomic.

Also, 7.17.6 Atomic integer types, has no similar constraint. Aside: The only constraints I see in the library are in <float.h> and <limits.h>, so it is not clear if this case should be a constraint.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Add to 6.7.3 Type qualifiers, a new paragraph after paragraph 3,

Atomic type qualifiers shall not be used if the implementation does not support atomic types (see 6.10.8.3).

Add to 7.16.6 Atomic integer types, a new paragraph before paragraph 1:

Constraints

Atomic type names shall not be used if the implementation does not support atomic types (see 6.10.8.3).


Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Add to 6.7.3 Type qualifiers, a new paragraph after paragraph 3,

Atomic type qualifiers shall not be used if the implementation does not support atomic types (see 6.10.8.3).


DR 433 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 435, or summary at top



DR 435

DR 434 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 436, or summary at top


Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
Submission Date: 2012-10-26
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1661
Subject:Possible defect report: Missing constraint w.r.t. Imaginary

Summary

The type specifier _Complex shall not be used if the implementation does not support complex types (see 6.10.8.3).

But, G.2 Types, has no similar constraint with respect to _Imaginary.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Add to G.2 Types, a new sentence in paragraph 1:

The _Imaginary type specifier shall not be used if the implementation does not support imaginary types (see 6.10.8.3).

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

This is not actually a defect.

Proposed Committee Response

Annex G requires _Imaginary be supported, so there is no need to cite a requirement for when it is not supported.


DR 434 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 436, or summary at top



DR 436

DR 435 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 437, or summary at top


Submitter: Willem Wakker (NL)
Submission Date: 2013-05-08
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1713
Subject: Request for interpretation of C11 6.8.5#6

C11, section 6.8.5 paragraph 6 reads:

An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression,156) that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate.157)


Question: to what does the that refers back to: to the controlling expression or to the constant expression?


Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

This is indeed an ambiguity, and after considering various proposals, the following was approved.

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The committee noted a typo in the Suggested Technical Corrigendum where "its expression *157" was intended to be "its expression-3 *157", and so has been corrected below.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Replace 6.8.5 paragraph 6 with:
An iteration statement may be assumed by the implementation to terminate if its controlling expression is not a constant expression *156), and none of the following operations are performed in its body, controlling expression or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3 *157):


DR 435 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 437, or summary at top



DR 437

DR 436 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 438, or summary at top


Submitter: Nick Stoughton (US)
Submission Date: 2013-06-19
Source: Austin Group
Reference Document: N1719
Subject: clock overflow problems

Summary

C11 (and C99 before it) state for clock() that

If the processor time used is not available or its value cannot be represented, the function returns the value (clock_t)(-1).
(C11 7.27.2.1 p3). Footnote 319 also states
In order to measure the time spent in a program, the clock function should be called at the start of the program and its return value subtracted from the value returned by subsequent calls.

The normative requirement implies that if more processor time has passed than can be fit into a variable of type clock_t the function must fail and return (clock_t)-1.

However, existing implementations almost exclusively ignore this requirement and if more ticks pass than can fit into a clock_t the implementation simply truncates the value and return the lowermost bits of the actual value. In programming environments where clock_t is a 32-bit integer type and CLOCKS_PER_SEC is one million (a very common implementation), clock() will start misreporting in less than 36 minutes of processor time for signed clock_t, or 72 minutes for unsigned clock_t.

Question 1: Are such implementations conforming? If not, should the standard be altered in any way to permit this de-facto standard implementation?

Question 2: Should the standard define some limit macros for clock_t (effectively defining new values in limits.h for CLOCK_MAX, the minimum maximum value for a clock_t)?

Question 3: If the value is truncated and clock_t is a signed type, the recommended application usage n footnote 319 (subtracting clock_t values to measure intervals) can cause the application to invoke undefined behavior via integer overflow. In particular, if the initial call to clock() returned A > 0 (by virtue of some processor time having been consumed before the start of main() or the point of first measurement), and a subsequent call returned B=INT_MIN just after overflow, then the recommended practice of computing B-A invokes undefined behavior. Should there be any warning of this included in the footnote?

Suggested Change

Given that the vast majority of surveyed implementations appear to have implemented clock with a simple incrementing counter with no check for overflow, the requirement for clock() to return (clock_t)-1 when the number of clock ticks cannot be represented in a variable of type clock_t should be relaxed:

At 7.27.2.1 paragraph 3, change:

If the processor time used is not available or its value cannot be represented, the function returns the value (clock_t)(-1).
to:
If the processor time used is not available, the function returns the value (clock_t)-1.
(thus leaving the behavior on overflow unspecified). Change footnote 319 to:
In order to measure the time spent in a program, the clock function should be called at the start of the program and its return value subtracted from the value returned by subsequent calls. Note, however, that such a subtraction may result in undefined behavior if clock_t is an unsigned integer type.


Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The author will be solicited for a revised technical corrigendum.


Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

There was no paper submitted on this topic, and the committee will again solicit the Austin Group for direction.

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The paper N1895 was provided and discussed. The general sentiment in the committee is that clock_t is underspecified and that this function should be deprecated and replaced in a revision to the standard with something that uses, perhaps, struct timespec. In particular, no implementations are known to implement the -1 return value on overflow.

The committee reviewed the following words and approved them as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

Proposed Committee Response

To question 1, such programs are not conforming and, no, the standard should not be altered to accept this behavior.

To question 2, no, this is not the direction.

To question 3, the committee does not agree that this invokes undefined behavior. The value returned under such conditions is unspecified.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

In 7.27.2.1p3 change:

If the processor time used is not available or its value cannot be represented, the function returns the value (clock_t)(-1)319. ...

319) In order to measure the time spent in a program, the clock function should be called at the start of the program and its return value subtracted from the value returned by subsequent calls.

to
If the processor time used is not available, the function returns the value (clock_t)(-1). If the value cannot be represented, the function returns an unspecified value319. ...

319) This may be due to overflow of the clock_t type.

DR 436 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 438, or summary at top



DR 438

DR 437 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 440, or summary at top


Submitter: Nick Stoughton (US)
Submission Date: 2013-06-19
Source: Austin Group
Reference Documents: N1720, Austin Group Defect #701
Subject: ungetc / ungetwc and file position after discarding push back problems

Summary

C11 (and C99 before it) state for both ungetc() and ungetwc() that

A successful intervening call (with the stream pointed to by stream) to a file positioning function (fseek, fsetpos, or rewind) discards any pushed-back characters for the stream. ... The value of the file position indicator for the stream after reading or discarding all pushed-back characters shall be the same as it was before the characters were pushed back.
(7.21.7.10 p2 & p5, with similar at 7.29.3.10 p2 & p5). The "or discarding" phrasing in p5 makes no sense: all of the listed functions which discard the push back also _set_ the file position. The file position will end up as whatever the function sets it to, not "the same as it was before the characters were pushed back".

Suggested Change

Change
The value of the file position indicator for the stream after reading or discarding all pushed-back characters shall be the same as it was before the characters were pushed back.
to
The value of the file position indicator for the stream after all pushed-back characters have been read shall be the same as it was before the characters were pushed back.

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The Standard is correct as written because the intent is that the specified file position indicator is an intermediate state inside the file positioning function after the pushed-back characters are discarded but before the actual seek. That gives you a reliable file position from which to do the seek. It's not intended that the file positioning function doesn't set the file position indicator.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Add a footnote to 7.21.7.10 paragraph 5, second sentence:

Note that a file positioning function may further modify the file position indicator after discarding any pushed-back characters.

Add a footnote to 7.29.3.10 paragraph 5, second sentence:
Note that a file positioning function may further modify the file position indicator after discarding any pushed-back wide characters.

DR 437 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 440, or summary at top



DR 439

DR 427 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 453, or summary at top


Submitter: Clark Nelson
Submission Date: 2013-07-16
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1729
Subject: Issues with the definition of “full expression”

Summary

I have discovered several issues in 6.8p4, which defines “full expression” and points out the major implications for an expression that is a full expression. In this paper I present the issues, along with my recommendations. For the issues for which it makes sense, I will later submit defect reports.

Here is the text of 6.8p4, with clause numbering added for convenience of reference:

  1. A full expression is an expression that is not part of another expression or of a declarator.
  2. Each of the following is a full expression:
    1. an initializer that is not part of a compound literal;
    2. the expression in an expression statement;
    3. the controlling expression of a selection statement (if or switch);
    4. the controlling expression of a while or do statement;
    5. each of the (optional) expressions of a for statement;
    6. the (optional) expression in a return statement.
  3. There is a sequence point between the evaluation of a full expression and the evaluation of the next full expression to be evaluated.

And here are the issues.

  1. The phrase “not part of another expression or of a declarator” (sentence 1) is rather difficult to understand. It probably means: not part of another expression, nor part of a declarator. (But DeMorgan's law is hard on the brain.)

    I believe this could be fixed as a simple editorial issue.

  2. The status of an initializer expression depends on whether the context is a declaration or a compound literal (clause 2.1). That would seem to imply different sequencing guarantees in those contexts. As it turns out, it does, but the implication is quite subtle. Consider 6.7.9p23:

    The evaluations of the initialization list expressions are indeterminately sequenced with respect to one another and thus the order in which any side effects occur is unspecified.

    And consider this example:

    #include <stdio.h>
    
    
    
    #define ONE_INIT	'0' + i++ % 3
    
    #define INITIALIZERS	[2] = ONE_INIT, [1] = ONE_INIT, [0] = ONE_INIT
    
    
    
    int main()
    
    {
    
    	int i = 0;
    
    	char x[4] = { INITIALIZERS }; // case 1
    
    	puts(x);
    
    	puts((char [4]){ INITIALIZERS }); // case 2
    
    	puts((char [4]){ INITIALIZERS } + i % 2); // case 3
    
    }

    In every use of the INITIALIZERS macro, the variable i is incremented three times. In cases 1 and 2, there is no undefined behavior, because the increments are in expressions that are indeterminately sequenced with respect to one another, not unsequenced. There is no guarantee in what order the evaluations are done, so there is no guarantee in what order they will appear, but the initial values are guaranteed to be '0', '1' and '2'.

    (It's not perfectly clear whether that guarantee was provided by C99, which instead said:

    The order in which any side effects occur among the initialization list expressions is unspecified.

    In any event, as a data point, that guarantee was not honored by GCC until release 4.6, in 2011.)

    On the other hand, because case 3 contains an unsequenced evaluation of i in the same full expression, it has undefined behavior.

    Considering the number of hours it took me to finally reach this conclusion, I thought it would be worthwhile to bring it to the full committee to make sure everyone understands and agrees with it. If so, an addition to the rationale might be in order.

  3. Consider 6.7.6p3 (emphasis added):

    A full declarator is a declarator that is not part of another declarator. The end of a full declarator is a sequence point.

    Also 6.2.4p8:

    A non-lvalue expression with structure or union type, where the structure or union contains a member with array type (including, recursively, members of all contained structures and unions) refers to an object with automatic storage duration and temporary lifetime.36) Its lifetime begins when the expression is evaluated and its initial value is the value of the expression. Its lifetime ends when the evaluation of the containing full expression or full declarator ends. Any attempt to modify an object with temporary lifetime results in undefined behavior.

    It is clear from these passages that the sequence of evaluations includes not only full expressions, but also full declarators – whatever sense it makes to talk about “evaluating” a full declarator. But sentence 3 does not acknowledge that reality.

    My inclination is to adopt a bit of terminology from Ada, and start talking about the “elaboration” of a declarator, which, for a variably modified type, involves the run-time evaluation of array sizes, and then to re-draft sentence 3 and the other paragraphs cited here, to make it clear that sequence points separate elaborations of full declarators as well as evaluations of full expressions. In any event, I think there's a problem in sentence 3 that needs to be fixed.

  4. Expressions in abstract declarators are not mentioned at all (compare to sentence 1). The logical inference is that such an expression is not a full expression by itself, but part of the containing full expression. But there are cases where there is no containing full expression. For example:

    typedef _Atomic(int (*)[rand()]) T;
    
    _Alignas(int [rand()]) int i;

    In these examples, not only is there no containing full expression, there isn't even any containing full declarator, because these expressions appear in the declaration specifiers, not the declarator.

    Probably the simplest approach here would be to disallow variably modified types with _Atomic and _Alignas, at least until the next revision of the standard.

  5. The list of full expression contexts (sentence 2) is not logically complete. According to the definition (sentence 1), an expression appearing in a constant-expression context is (often) a full expression. Of course there are no sequencing implications relevant for constant expressions, but it's not clear that makes it important for a constant expression not to be counted as a full expression. In any event, it's not clear how the list normatively interacts with the definition.

    I think we should consider moving the list into a note, so it's clear that the definition is, well, definitive. The note could also point out that sequencing is irrelevant to constant expressions.


Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The committee solicits the author for any suggested technical corrigenda.


Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

There was no paper submitted on this topic, and the committee will again solicit the author for suggested technical corrigenda.

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

There was no paper submitted on this topic, and the committee has solicited the author for suggested technical corrigenda.

Oct 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

Change 6.2.4p8 sentence 3 from:

Its lifetime ends when the evaluation of the containing full expression or full declarator ends.
to:
Its lifetime ends when the evaluation of the containing full expression ends.

Delete 6.7.6p3 sentence 2:

The end of a full declarator is a sequence point.

Change 6.8p4 from:

A full expression is an expression that is not part of another expression, or of a declarator. Each of the following is a full expression: an initializer that is not part of a compound literal; the expression in an expression statement; the controlling expression of a selection statement (if or switch); the controlling expression of a while or do statement; each of the (optional) expressions of a for statement; the (optional) expression in a return statement. There is a sequence point between the evaluation of a full expression and the evaluation of the next full expression to be evaluated.

to:

A full expression is an expression that is not part of another expression, nor part of a declarator or abstract declarator. There is also an implicit full expression in which the non-constant size expressions for a variably modified type are evaluated; within that full expression, the evaluation of different size expressions are unsequenced with respect to one another. There is a sequence point between the evaluation of a full expression and the evaluation of the next full expression to be evaluated.

Add after 6.8p4:

NOTE: Each of the following is a full expression:

While a constant expression satisfies the definition of a full expression, evaluating it does not depend on nor produce any side effects, so the sequencing implications of being a full expression are not relevant to a constant expression.

Delete the Annex C bullet:

Change the Annex C bullet from:

to:

DR 427 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 453, or summary at top



DR 440

DR 438 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 441, or summary at top


Submitter: Joseph Myers
Submission Date: 2013-07-21
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1730
Subject: Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 1

Summary

Some issues with floating point in C11 have been identified as part of the UK review of the N1711 draft of TS 18661-1. While such issues relate to the general area of C bindings to IEC 60559:2011, and so could be addressed in the TS on that basis, since the issues also apply to C11 as-is it may be more appropriate to address some or all of these issues as Defect Reports with a view to having a normative fix in a future TC to C11 rather than only having a fix in conjunction with the new bindings.

Issue 1: Choice of long double in Annex F

Annex F provides various choices for the long double type (which may or may not be an IEC 60559 type), but no method is provided for an application to determine which choice has been made.

If a macro is provided to say whether the type is an IEC 60559 type, all the other properties can be determined from the existing <float.h> macros. So, a sufficient fix would be:

In 5.2.4.2.2, insert a new paragraph after paragraph 10: Whether a type matches an IEC 60559 type is characterized by the implementation-defined values of FLT_IS_IEC_60559, DBL_IS_IEC_60559, and LDBL_IS_IEC_60559:

Oct 2013 meeting
Committee discussion led to a proposed committee response.
Apr 2014 meeting
Correspondence with the author led the committee to augment the proposed committee response.

Proposed Committee Response

To do as suggested, distinguish whether float, double, and long double are IEC or not, requires the addition of new macros, which is a feature, which is not allowed by the mechanism of defect reports.

The defect originator notes that the underlying issue that needs consideration in any further comprehensive publication of the Standard is that all implementation defined behaviors need to be strictly called out in the Standard, and moreover that they be done so in a manner that is accessible to a client of the implementation to allow proper choice of algorithms. It has been asserted that leaving implementation defined behaviors formally undefined in the Standard has led to significant and unnecessary divergences in implementations.


DR 438 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 441, or summary at top



DR 441

DR 440 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 442, or summary at top


Submitter: Joseph Myers
Submission Date: 2013/07/21
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1730
Subject: Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 2

Summary

Some issues with floating point in C11 have been identified as part of the UK review of the N1711 draft of TS 18661-1. While such issues relate to the general area of C bindings to IEC 60559:2011, and so could be addressed in the TS on that basis, since the issues also apply to C11 as-is it may be more appropriate to address some or all of these issues as Defect Reports with a view to having a normative fix in a future TC to C11 rather than only having a fix in conjunction with the new bindings.

Issue 2: Definition of FLT_ROUNDS

The C11 definition of FLT_ROUNDS is inadequate in that it refers to floating-point addition but does not say addition of what type. If long double is not an IEC 60559 type, it may not fully support all rounding modes even though they are supported by other types. (This is an actual issue with real implementations using non-IEC 60559 types for long double.) A suitable fix would be:

In 5.2.4.2.2#8, insert "for type float" after "floating-point addition". At the end of F.2#1, insert "The value of FLT_ROUNDS applies to all IEC 60559 types supported by the implementation, but may not apply to non-IEC 60559 types.".

Oct 2013 meeting
The committee adopted a Proposed Committee Response that has been substantially revised.

Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The Proposed Committee Response was revised for accuracy and more detailed information, and is provided below.

Proposed Committee Response (obsolete)

The committee regards the existing definition of FLT_ROUNDS as intended to apply to types float, double and long double. However, if all three types cannot support the same set of rounding modes, the implementation needs to set FLT_ROUNDS to -1 meaning indeterminable.

As has been pointed out, in Annex F, only the types float and double need be IEC 60559 types. If long double is not an IEC 60559 type (for example, a pair of doubles), it may not support the same set of rounding modes as float and double. In this case, having FLT_ROUNDS apply to float and double (but not long double) would result in a value of 0, 1, 2, or 3 and would provide new and useful information to the programmer.

However, this behavioral change could also break existing programs, and as such the committee prefers to leave as is for this revision of the Standard.


Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The Proposed Committee Response was revised yet again based on the input that since FLT_ROUNDS in existing practice is universally coded as 1, the proposed changes won’t affect existing practice.

Proposed Committee Response

The implementation of long double, for example, may significantly differ from IEC floating types and may not support the same choices as would otherwise be possible for FLT_ROUNDS. All known implementations define FLT_ROUNDS as the value 1 (round to nearest). and as such exempting non-IEC long double behavior allows the potential for implementations to provide the full range of possible values for IEC floating types.

Proposed Technical Corrigendum

At the end of F.2#1, insert

The value of FLT_ROUNDS applies to all IEC 60559 types supported by the implementation, but need not apply to non-IEC 60559 types.

DR 440 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 442, or summary at top



DR 442

DR 441 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 443, or summary at top


Submitter: Joseph Myers
Submission Date: 2013-07-21
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1730
Subject: Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 3

Summary

Some issues with floating point in C11 have been identified as part of the UK review of the N1711 draft of TS 18661-1. While such issues relate to the general area of C bindings to IEC 60559:2011, and so could be addressed in the TS on that basis, since the issues also apply to C11 as-is it may be more appropriate to address some or all of these issues as Defect Reports with a view to having a normative fix in a future TC to C11 rather than only having a fix in conjunction with the new bindings.

Issue 3: Floating-point exceptions and 6.5#5

C11 6.5#5 says "If an exceptional condition occurs during the evaluation of an expression (that is, if the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type), the behavior is undefined.". When the Annex F bindings are in effect, it must be intended that floating-point exceptions do not produce such undefined behavior (instead, behavior such as evaluating to a NaN must be defined). But no normative text actually says that.

A suitable fix would be:

Append to 6.5#5: For implementations defining __STDC_IEC_559__, this does not apply to exceptional conditions where the behavior (such as raising a floating-point exception and returning a NaN) is defined by Annex F, directly or by reference to IEC 60559.

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

Further correspondence with the author and excerpted in N1804 has identified the core issue as being a simple misunderstanding of the applicability of normative annexes to the standard.

Proposed Committee Response

WG14 treats normative annexes such as Annex F as if they were linear extensions of the standard itself. When Annex F is requested via definition of __STDC_IEC_559__ then 6.5#5 is superseded and floating point exceptions become well defined.


DR 441 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 443, or summary at top



DR 443

DR 442 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 445, or summary at top


Submitter: Joseph Myers
Submission Date: 2013-07-21
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1730
Subject: Floating-point issues in C11 from PDTS 18661-1 UK review, Issue 4

Summary

Some issues with floating point in C11 have been identified as part of the UK review of the N1711 draft of TS 18661-1. While such issues relate to the general area of C bindings to IEC 60559:2011, and so could be addressed in the TS on that basis, since the issues also apply to C11 as-is it may be more appropriate to address some or all of these issues as Defect Reports with a view to having a normative fix in a future TC to C11 rather than only having a fix in conjunction with the new bindings.

Issue 4: Floating-point state not being an object

The description of the floating-point environment in C11 fails to make sufficiently clear what is or is not an object (C11 footnote 205 is not normative, and so cannot be used to that effect); it uses terms such as "system variable" without saying what that is. Simply moving that footnote to normative text would fix this issue:

Move the contents of footnote 205 (C11 subclause 7.6) to the end of 5.1.2.3#2.

Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

The committee discusses this issue further and could not see an actual defect: there are no misinterpretations stated or implied.

Proposed Committee Response

Since operations on the floating point environment are well defined there is no need to normatively define anything further about its implementation. The footnote adds clarity and should remain as is.


DR 442 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 445, or summary at top



DR 444

DR 499 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 467, or summary at top


Submitter: Joseph Myers
Submission Date: 2013-07-23
Source: WG 14
Reference Document: N1731
Subject: Issues with alignment in C11, part 1

Summary

There are various deficiencies in the C11 text about alignment requirements.

Issue 1: Existence of over-aligned types

6.2.8#3 defines the concept of an over-aligned type, with a footnote saying "Every over-aligned type is, or contains, a structure or union type with a member to which an extended alignment has been applied.". But there is no way in the syntax to apply such an alignment to a member. _Alignas appears in the syntax for alignment-specifier, which in turn appears in that for declaration-specifiers (6.7#1). But structure and union members instead use struct-declaration which uses specifier-qualifier-list which doesn't include a case for alignment-specifier at all. So for the reference to over-aligned types, and the reference in 6.7.5#6 to the "declared object or member", to be meaningful, something needs adding to the syntax for struct-declaration. (Note that specifier-qualifier-list is also used in the syntax for type-name, and it seems less likely that a type-name was intended to be able to include alignment-specifiers.)


Oct 2013 meeting

Committee Discussion

Apr 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion


Oct 2014 meeting

Committee Discussion

There still has not been adequate review of these changes. The Project Editor and others have been asked to examine these changes closely prior to our next meeting.

Apr 2015 meeting

Committee Discussion

The suggested syntax provided by the author has been adopted on a trial basis in at least one implementation. It does not, however, provide for compound literals.

A simpler syntax change was discussed, to wit

specifier-qualifier-list:
type-specifier specifier-qualifier-listopt
type-qualifier specifier-qualifier-listopt
alignment-specifier specifier-qualifier-listopt

where specifier-qualifier-list is used in the grammar in only two productions: struct-declaration (which relates to the primary purpose of this DR), and type-name, which is used only in the definitions of these constructs:

A constraint could be added to 6.7.7 type-name after paragraph 1 disallowing the use of alignment-specifier in a type-name except in the case of compound literal which was deemed useful by the committee. The following principles were elucidated:

  • _Alignas needs to be applied wherever objects are laid out in memory. On modern architectures page and cache line alignment of data structures is increasingly critical for performance.
  • Alignment is incorporated into the type system for structure (and union) members, but otherwise is not considered part of the type.
  • In 6.7.3p5, there are two references to specifier-qualifier-list, which should also reference declaration specifiers.

    In 6.7.5 paragraphs 2 and 4, there are occurrences of the phrase “alignment attribute” which should instead read “alignment specifier”

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee did not discuss the direction from the last meeting in any substantial manner. It has solicited a paper from the author of the direction expressing these ideas as a Suggested Technical Corrigendum.

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    A new paper N2028 was submitted that embodied the direction above and the committee accepted it.

    Proposed Technical Correigendum

    Change 6.7.2.1p1 from

    specifier-qualifier-list:
    type-specifier specifier-qualifier-listopt
    type-qualifier specifier-qualifier-listopt

    to

    specifier-qualifier-list:
    type-specifier specifier-qualifier-listopt
    type-qualifier specifier-qualifier-listopt
    alignment-specifier specifier-qualifier-listopt

    Change 6.7.5p2 from

    An alignment attribute shall not be specified in a declaration of a typedef, or a bit-field, or a function, or a parameter, or an object declared with the register storage-class specifier.

    to

    An alignment specifier shall appear only in the declaration specifiers of a declaration, or in the specifier-qualifier list of a member declaration, or in the type name of a compound literal. An alignment specifier shall not be used in conjunction with either of the storage-class specifiers typedef or register, nor in a declaration of a function or bit-field.

    Change 6.7.3p5 from

    If the same qualifier appears more than once in the same specifier-qualifier-list, either directly or via one or more typedefs, the behavior is the same as if it appeared only once. If other qualifiers appear along with the _Atomic qualifier in a specifier-qualifier-list, the resulting type is the so-qualified atomic type.

    to

    If the same qualifier appears more than once in the same specifier-qualifier-list or as declaration-specifiers, either directly or via one or more typedefs, the behavior is the same as if it appeared only once. If other qualifiers appear along with the _Atomic qualifier the resulting type is the so-qualified atomic type.

    Change 6.7.5p4 from

    The combined effect of all alignment attributes in a declaration shall not...

    to

    The combined effect of all alignment specifiers in a declaration shall not...

    DR 499 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 467, or summary at top



    DR 445

    DR 443 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 446, or summary at top


    Submitter: Joseph Myers
    Submission Date: 2013-07-23
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1731
    Subject: Issues with alignment in C11, part 2

    Summary

    There are various deficiencies in the C11 text about alignment requirements.

    Issue 2: Contexts in which alignments are supported

    6.2.8#2 defines "fundamental alignment": "A fundamental alignment is represented by an alignment less than or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the implementation in all contexts, which is equal to _Alignof (max_align_t)."

    6.2.8#3 defines "extended alignment": "An extended alignment is represented by an alignment greater than _Alignof (max_align_t). It is implementation-defined whether any extended alignments are supported and the contexts in which they are supported. A type having an extended alignment requirement is an over-aligned type."

    6.2.8#4 defines "valid alignment", saying "Alignments are represented as values of the type size_t. Valid alignments include only those values returned by an _Alignof expression for fundamental types, plus an additional implementation-defined set of values, which may be empty. Every valid alignment value shall be a nonnegative integral power of two.".

    max_align_t is specified in 7.19#2 as "an object type whose alignment is as great as is supported by the implementation in all contexts".

    The memory management functions in 7.22.3 are defined to return a pointer "suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object with a fundamental alignment requirement and then used to access such an object or an array of such objects in the space allocated". In the case of aligned_alloc, there may be a stricter requirement given by the alignment passed to the function, but the alignment passed to the function can't result in memory any less-aligned than a fundamental alignment requirement. The alignment requirement still applies even if the size is too small for any object requiring the given alignment (see the response to C90 DR#075).

    There are various problems with the above:

    The following principles seem natural for any fix for this issue:


    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The proposed changes have raised no concerns and so the committee has agreed to use them as the following Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change 6.2.8#2 to:

    A fundamental alignment is a valid alignment less than or equal to _Alignof (max_align_t). Fundamental alignments shall be supported by the implementation for objects of all storage durations. The alignment requirements of the following types shall be fundamental alignments:

    In 6.2.8#3, change

    "the contexts in"
    to
    "the storage durations of objects for which".

    In 6.2.8#4, change

    "those values returned by an _Alignof expression for fundamental types"
    to
    "fundamental alignments".

    In 6.7.5#3, change

    "in the context in which it appears"
    to
    "for an object of the storage duration, if any, being declared".

    Add a new constraint at the end of 6.7.5#3:

    "An object shall not be declared with an over-aligned type with an extended alignment requirement not supported by the implementation for an object of that storage duration.".

    In 7.19#2, change

    "whose alignment is as great as is supported by the implementation in all contexts"
    to
    "whose alignment is the greatest fundamental alignment".


    DR 443 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 446, or summary at top



    DR 446

    DR 445 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 447, or summary at top


    Submitter: Blaine Garst
    Submission Date: 2013-07-31
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1736
    Subject:Use byte instead of character for memcmp, memcpy

    Summary

    It has been noted that the descriptions for 7.24.2.1 memcpy, 7.24.2.2 memmove and 7.24.4.1 memcmp are written using the term character which is inconsistent with their design as memory functions. Moreover, if one then reads 3.7.2 as allowing character to mean multibyte character, it is thought that confusion could arise as to whether the number of multibyte characters should be supplied rather than the number of bytes.

    Although it is clear by 7.24.1 String function conventions paragraph 3

    For all functions in this sub clause, each character shall be interpreted as if it had the type unsigned char
    that the number of bytes to be used corresponds to the size of a unsigned char, one has to reference 6.2.6 Representation of types to learn that unsigned char is in fact a single byte (consisting of CHAR_BIT bits).

    It would be simpler and more to the point if the three memory functions describe their count parameter n in terms of bytes.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    memcpy

    Change 7.24.2.1 p 2 first sentence from

    The memcpy function copies n characters from the object pointed to by s2 into the object pointed to by s1.

    to

    The memcpy function copies n bytes from the object pointed to by s2 into the object pointed to by s1.

    memmove

    Change 7.24.2.2 p 2 from

    The memmove function copies n characters from the object pointed to by s2 into the object pointed to by s1. Copying takes place as if the n characters from the object pointed to by s2 are first copied into a temporary array of n characters that does not overlap the objects pointed to by s1 and s2, and then the n characters from the temporary array are copied into the object pointed to by s1.

    to

    The memmove function copies n bytes from the object pointed to by s2 into the object pointed to by s1. Copying takes place as if the n bytes from the object pointed to by s2 are first copied into a temporary array of n bytes that does not overlap the objects pointed to by s1 and s2, and then the n bytes from the temporary array are copied into the object pointed to by s1.

    memcmp

    Change 7.24.4.1 p 2 from

    The memcmp function compares the first n characters of the object pointed to by s1 to the first n characters of the object pointed to by s2.

    to

    The memcmp function compares the first n bytes of the object pointed to by s1 to the first n bytes of the object pointed to by s2.

    Oct 2013 meeting

    Proposed Committee Response

    After reviewing the original motivation and suggestion for change, it was noted by the project editor that "character" is used in several distinct contexts, and that it would be inappropriate to simply improve one area without a comprehensive review of all uses such that the existing consistency of uses of character be replaced in a consistent new manner, as yet undetermined. As it stands, although careful reading is strictly required, it is correct and as such this is not a defect.


    DR 445 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 447, or summary at top



    DR 447

    DR 446 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 448, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2013-08-20
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1739, DR 285
    Subject: Boolean from complex

    Summary

    What is the value of: _Bool b = 0.0 + 3.0*I;

    I believe that there is a contradiction between 6.3.1.2 Boolean type and 6.3.1.7 Real and complex in that one requires that the value to be 1 and the other requires the value to be 0.

    6.3.1.2 Boolean type

    1 When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1.

    6.3.1.7 Real and complex

    2 When a value of complex type is converted to a real type, the imaginary part of the complex value is discarded and the value of the real part is converted according to the conversion rules for the corresponding real type.

    DR 285 against C99 had a similar issue on conversion from imaginary to boolean. That resulted in:

    G.4.2 Real and imaginary

    1 When a value of imaginary type is converted to a real type other than _Bool,376) the result is a positive zero.

    376) See 6.3.1.2.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    I believe that 6.3.1.7 Real and complex, paragraph 2 should be changed to:

    2 When a value of complex type is converted to a real type other than _Bool(footnote), the imaginary part of the complex value is discarded and the value of the real part is converted according to the conversion rules for the corresponding real type.

    (footnote) See 6.3.1.2.


    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change 6.3.1.7, paragraph 2 to:

    When a value of complex type is converted to a real type other than _Bool(footnote), the imaginary part of the complex value is discarded and the value of the real part is converted according to the conversion rules for the corresponding real type.

    (footnote) See 6.3.1.2.


    DR 446 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 448, or summary at top



    DR 448

    DR 447 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 449, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2013-08-20
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1740, DR 231, DR 250
    Subject: What are the semantics of a # non-directive?

    Summary

    What is a directive name? What are the semantics of a # non-directive?

    In particular, what should happen for a translation unit with these four lines:

    # non-directive
    # "Long string"
    # 'Many characters are implementation defined'
    # 1234

    The syntax in 6.10 Preprocessing directives has in group-part:

    # non-directive

    The C standard section 6.10, paragraph 3 has:

    A non-directive shall not begin with any of the directive names appearing in the syntax.

    I find that confusing as directive name is only used in the C standard in 6.10 paragraphs 3 and 4 (without any definition). So, what is a directive name?

    Assuming directive name is one of:

    then my four line program contains lines that are

    # non-directive

    so should be valid. However, almost every C compiler I have tried considers them errors that end translation. I did find at least one C compiler that ignored them (treated them as comments). I did find at least one C compiler that considered them errors even inside of:

    #if 0
    #endif

    where they should have been ignored.

    I believe that gcc treats

    # 1234
    the same as:
    # line 1234

    I see no semantics for non-directive. So, what is supposed to happen with them? Is it implicitly undefined?

    Since preprocessing directives (which includes non-directive) are deleted at the end of translation phase 4, these non-directives could act as comments.

    DRs 231 and 250 appear to contradict each other on what happens with a non-directive and neither refers to the other.

    DR 231 Says that text-line and non-directive are not implementation defined. They are placeholders in the phases of translation and are subject to normal processing in subsequent phases of translation. And that words were supposed to be added to the Rationale.

    DR 250 Says that non-directive is a preprocessing directive. And, it added that as a footnote in 6.10.3#11

    Neither DR added normative words.

    In answering this, we should consider what happens with mis-spellings, such as:

    Should # non-directive be a comment (and ignored)? Implementation defined? An error that ends translation (like #error)? Undefined behaviour?

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Since I do not know what should happen, I have none. But, if we decide on undefined behaviour, I would like that as explicit words.


    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    There is intentional vagueness in this area such that implementations have and exhibit unspecified and useful additional behaviors. This has been a source of historical confusion and should be addressed.

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    A small change was identified and made in the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Add new paragraph 6.10 paragraph 9:

    The execution of a non-directive preprocessing directive results in undefined behavior.

    Add to Annex J.2:

    The execution of a non-directive preprocessing directive (6.10)


    DR 447 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 449, or summary at top



    DR 449

    DR 448 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 450, or summary at top


    Submitter: Douglas Walls
    Submission Date: 2013-08-24
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1744
    Subject:What is the value of TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS for implementations with no maximum?

    Summary

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum


    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The question posed should be answered.

    Proposed Committee Response

    The standard intentionally does not define a value of TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS for implementations with no maximum.

    The TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS macro is used to limit recursion at thread termination. The issue is that existing practice allows the creation of new tss bindings during the destructor call, and one destructor might reincarnate the original, thus forming an infinite recursive destructor loop. This loop may appear non-deterministically and is difficult to detect. The purpose of TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS is as a bound to such recursion.

    It is possible monitor the recursion depth with careful defensive programming and in those cases the value of TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS is useful as that bound.


    DR 448 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 450, or summary at top



    DR 450

    DR 449 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 451, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2013-09-02
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1752
    Subject: tmpnam_s clears s[0] when maxsize > RSIZE_MAX

    Summary

    The majority of bounds checking functions are specified to set the first element of the destination buffer, s[0], to the NUL character when a constraint violation occurs and the s pointer is non-null and the size of the buffer is greater than zero and less than or equal to SIZE_MAX.
    However, the tmpnam_s function sets s[0] to NUL even when maxsize is greater than RSIZE_MAX, making its behavior on constraint violation inconsistent with the rest.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum:

    Change paragraph 8 in the Returns section of tmpnam_s to read:

    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees with the issue, and requests that the suggested technical corrigendum be broken into more parts for both clarity and consistency.

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee did not receive revised words and will again solicit them from the author.


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1873 was provided and discussed, and after several revisions the following proposal were approved.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change K.3.5.1.2 paragraph 8 (the Returns section of tmpnam_s) from:

    If no suitable string can be generated, or if there is a runtime-constraint violation, the tmpnam_s function writes a null character to s[0] (only if s is not null and maxsize is greater than zero) and returns a nonzero value.

    to:

    If no suitable string can be generated, or if there is a runtime-constraint violation, the tmpnam_s function:

    DR 449 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 451, or summary at top



    DR 451

    DR 450 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 452, or summary at top


    Submitter: Freek Wiedijk and Robbert Krebbers (Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands)
    Submission Date: 2013-08-30
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1747
    Subject: Instability of uninitialized automatic variables

    Summary

    The standard is unclear about the following questions:

    1. Can an uninitialized variable with automatic storage duration (of a type that does not have trap values, whose address has been taken so 6.3.2.1p2 does not apply, and which is not volatile) change its value without direct action of the program?
    2. If the answer to question 1 is "yes", then how far can this kind of "instability" propagate?
    3. If "unstable" values can propagate through function arguments into a called function, can calling a C standard library function exhibit undefined behavior because of this?

    Specifically, consider:

    unsigned char x[1]; /* intentionally uninitialized */
    printf("%d\n", x[0]);
    printf("%d\n", x[0]);
    

    Does the standard allow an implementation to let this code print two different values? And if so, if we insert either of the following three statements

    x[0] = x[0];
    x[0] += 0;
    x[0] *= 0;
    

    between the declaration and the printf statements, is this behavior still allowed? Or alternatively, can these printf statements exhibit undefined behavior instead of having to print a reasonable number.

    Motivation and discussion

    The standard is unclear about these questions.

    On the one hand the committee response to Defect Report #260 strongly suggests that the committee decided that the standard implies the answer to question 1 to be "yes". (Although Defect Report #260 applies to the C99 standard and hence has been superseded by the C11 standard, no modification to the standard text was deemed necessary at the time, and all relevant text in the C11 standard is identical to that in the C99 standard.) The relevant quote from the committee response to Defect Report #260 is:

    In the case of an indeterminate value [...] the actual bit-pattern may change without direct action of the program.

    A subtlety is that Defect Report #260 talks about bit-patterns and not about values, but for variables of type unsigned char there is a one-to-one correspondence between bit-patterns and values.

    Another argument in favor of "instability" of indeterminate values is that values can "become indeterminate" (e.g. 5.1.2.3p5, 6.2.4p2, and 6.2.4p6). In these cases the value of an object may also change without an explicit store (and can keep changing?)

    On the other hand, 6.7.9p10 states that the kind of uninitialized variables that we are discussing get an indeterminate value. From 3.19.2 it follows that if a type has no trap values, then indeterminate and unspecified values are the same. And in 3.19.3, it is stated explicitly that an unspecified value is chosen. Which implies that the value - after having been chosen - cannot change anymore.

    Another argument against "instability" is that 6.8p3 states that "the values are stored in the objects (including storing an indeterminate value in objects without an initializer) each time the declaration is reached in the order of execution", and that 6.2.4p2 states that "An object [...] retains its last-stored value throughout its lifetime." The only way that one could read this in light of Defect Report #260 is if "retaining an indeterminate value" is read as meaning that the indeterminateness of the value is retained, without the value having a specific value.

    It seems attractive to make a distinction between indeterminate values that are allowed to change without direct action of the program in the way that Defect Report #260 interpreted the standard, and unspecified values that do not have this property. However the current text of 3.19.2 does not allow for this interpretation. Also, probably some instances of "indeterminate" and "unspecified" would need to be changed for such an interpretation to make sense. (For example in 6.2.6.1p6 "the bytes of the object representation that correspond to any padding bytes take unspecified values." should probably become "... take indeterminate values.")

    The reason for question 3 is that if the kind of "instability" that questions 1 and 2 ask for is allowed to propagate maximally, then it becomes impossible to implement printf in C itself. When converting an indeterminate value to a string of output characters, the value can keep changing underneath, and the code cannot protect itself against this.

    On the other hand, if library functions exhibit undefined behavior on these kinds of "unstable" uninitialized values, then an fwrite of a struct with uninitialized padding bytes would also give undefined behavior. The fact that one wants to be able to copy uninitialized padding bytes in structs using memcpy without undefined behavior is the reason that using the value of an uninitialized object is not undefined behavior. This seems to suggest that an fwrite of a struct with uninitialized padding bytes should not exhibit undefined behavior.

    Possible Resolutions

    We see three reasonable sets of answers to these questions:

    Resolution (a)

    1. no
    2. not applicable
    3. not applicable

    Advantage

    Easy to repair the unclarity in the standard. Just add text that explicitly states that indeterminate values cannot change without direct action from the program. This will prevent people from invoking the response to Defect Report #260 from then on.

    Disadvantage

    Restricts the kind of optimizations compilers are allowed to perform.

    Resolution (b)

    1. yes
    2. any operation performed on indeterminate values will have an indeterminate value as its result
    3. no

    Specifically, "unstable" values will also propagate through function calls. Also, after

    x[0] *= 0;
    

    the value of x[0] still will be "unstable" and hence still can be any byte, and will not necessary be 0.

    Advantage

    Gives compilers more freedom to perform optimizations.

    Is Defect Report #260-compliant (i.e., "the committee did not change its mind").

    Disadvantage

    Needs more modifications to the text of the standard. It will then be necessary to make an explicit distinction between "indeterminate non-trap value" and "unspecified value".

    Resolution (c)

    1. yes
    2. any operation performed on indeterminate values will have an indeterminate value as its result
    3. yes, library functions will exhibit undefined behavior when used on indeterminate values (probably functions like memcpy and maybe fwrite should be immune from this)

    Advantage

    Restricts program behaviors least, giving compilers even more freedom.

    Disadvantage

    Needs even more modification to the text of the standard.

    Needs a decision on what library functions will not have undefined behavior when working on indeterminate values.

    This is certainly not compatible with the current version of the standard, as no undefined behavior of this kind related to library functions is described there.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    For resolution (a)

    In 6.2.4p2, change "An object exists, has a constant address, and retains its last-stored value throughout its lifetime." to "An object exists and has a constant address throughout its lifetime. The value of an object is retained, including the object representation, until some other value is stored into it, or until the moment when the value becomes indeterminate (at which moment it is replaced with an indeterminate value, and after which that value is retained again)."

    For resolution (b)

    In 3.19.2 change "either an unspecified value or a trap representation" to "either an unspecified value or a trap representation, which can change arbitrarily without direct action from the program".

    In 6.2.4p2, change "An object exists, has a constant address, and retains its last-stored value throughout its lifetime." to "An object exists, has a constant address, and retains its last-stored value (provided this value is not indeterminate), throughout its lifetime."

    At the end of 6.5p1 add "If at least one of the operands of an operator is indeterminate, the result of the operator is also indeterminate."

    Some instances of "indeterminate" and "unspecified" (to be determined) should be replaced by respectively "unspecified" and "indeterminate". See for example the instance in 6.2.6.1p6 mentioned earlier.

    For resolution (c)

    The changes for resolution (b), and also:

    In 7.1.4p1 add: "If a function is called with an indeterminate value, the behavior is undefined."

    In a selection (to be determined) of functions from the library, add text that counters this general statement added to 7.1.4p1.


    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The author provided N1793 and an accompanying presentation N1818 in which his position changed to believing that "wobbly" values are not actually defined by the standard, and after discussion agreed that the following committee response would be an acceptable resolution.

    Proposed Committee Response


    DR 450 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 452, or summary at top



    DR 452

    DR 451 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 454, or summary at top


    Submitter: Shao Miller
    Submission Date: 2013-09-29
    Source: WG 14
    Reference Document: N1762
    Subject: Effective Type in Loop Invariant

    Summary

    The definition for "effective type" does not appear to apply to non-lvalue expressions. This can cause a behavioural difference, in loops.

    6.5p6:

    The effective type of an object for an access to its stored value is the declared type of the object, if any.87) If a value is stored into an object having no declared type through an lvalue having a type that is not a character type, then the type of the lvalue becomes the effective type of the object for that access and for subsequent accesses that do not modify the stored value. If a value is copied into an object having no declared type using memcpy or memmove, or is copied as an array of character type, then the effective type of the modified object for that access and for subsequent accesses that do not modify the value is the effective type of the object from which the value is copied, if it has one. For all other accesses to an object having no declared type, the effective type of the object is simply the type of the lvalue used for the access.

    Given the following code:

    union u1 {
        int x;
        long y;
      };

    int func1(void) {
        union u1 o1 = { 42 };

        return (0, o1).x;
      }

    The o1 sub-expression in the return statement's expression accesses the stored union value of the object. The comma operator's result has that value, but it is not an lvalue and so "effective type" does not appear to apply. While the access to o1 involves an access to a stored value, the membership operator can be said to access an object whose value is available, but perhaps not exactly "stored." o1.x is an lvalue, but (0, o1).x is not.

    6.5.2.3p3:

    A postfix expression followed by the . operator and an identifier designates a member of a structure or union object. The value is that of the named member,95) and is an lvalue if the first expression is an lvalue. If the first expression has qualified type, the result has the so-qualified version of the type of the designated member.

    6.5p7:

    An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue expression that has one of the following types:88)

    Given:

    union u2 {
        int x;
        long y;
        char ca[2];
      };

    int func2(void) {
        union u2 o2 = { 42 };

        return (0, o2).x;
      }

    We have a similar situation, even though (0, o2) yields an object with temporary lifetime. (Side question: Should the expression (0, o2).ca == o2.ca yield zero, non-zero, or should it be implementation-defined?)

    Suppose we have a portable strategy to determine whether or not the object representations of int and long are the same. If they are and if we have the following code:

    union u3 {
        int x;
        long y;
      };

    long func3(void) {
        union u3 o3;

        o3.x = 42;
        return (0, o3).y;
      }

    Are we violating the effective type rules? We might expect type-punning to be relevant here and the membership operator to be accessing a member value of a union value.

    If the answer is yes, then does the Standard define the effective type of the non-lvalue expression 0, o3 ?

    If the answer is no, then this can cause the loss of an optimization opportunity in the following code:

    struct s4 {
        int x;
        float f;
      };

    void func4(long * lp, struct s4 * s4p) {
        int c;

        for (c = 0; c < (0, *s4p).i; ++c)
          --*lp;
      }

    We do not expect *lp to alias into *s4p, so we might optimize this loop such that (0, *s4p).i is only computed once. If, in another translation unit, it turned out that these did alias, the optimization would normally be justified based on a violation of the effective type rules. If there isn't a violation because of the non-lvalue nature of the comma operator's expression, then the optimization would not appear to be justified.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    None.


    Oct 2013 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee did not have adequate time to consider these issues and intends that these issues be further refined through consultation with the author.

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Further input was not received from the author and will again be solicited.


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Discussion with the author clarified these issues, and the paper N1888 was discussed. From that, we extract the following example

    
    union u2 {
        int x;
        long y;
        char ca[2];
    };
    
    int func2(void) {
        union u2 o2 = { .ca = "a" };
    
    and question, what is the result of (0,o2).ca == o2.ca?

    Given that the comma operator doesn't yield an lvalue (6.5.17), and from 6.2.4p8 such a non-lvalue expression is stated to have automatic storage duration, this seems to require that the answer is false, even though this defeats compiler optimizations.

    The effective type rule 6.5.p6 also does not seem to apply to objects with temporary lifetime, and has undesirable consequences.

    The direction the committee would like to go is something like:

    In 6.2.4p8, append

    An object with temporary lifetime behaves as if it had the declared type of its value. Such an object is known as a temporary object. A temporary object need not have a unique address.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The following words were drafted and approved by the committee as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Committee Response

    To the question "Should the expression (O, o2).ca == o2.ca yield zero, non-zero, or should it be implementation defined?" the answer is "implementation defined".

    With the following changes, the effective type of O, o3 is defined.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 6.2.4p8, append

    An object with temporary lifetime behaves as if it were declared with the type of its value for the purposes of effective type. Such an object need not have a unique address.

    (add forward reference to 6.5p6 to this section)

    DR 451 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 454, or summary at top



    DR 453

    DR 439 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 465, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
    Submission Date: 2013-10-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1776
    Subject: Atomic flag type and operations

    Summary

    It appears to me that there is a wording problem in 7.17.8.*

    7.17.8 Atomic flag type and operations
    #1: The atomic_flag type provides the classic test-and-set functionality. It has two states, set and clear.

    7.17.8.1 The atomic_flag_test_and_set functions
    #2: Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to true.

    #3: Atomically, the value of the object immediately before the effects.

    7.17.8.2 The atomic_flag_clear functions
    #2: Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to false.

    An issue is states (set, clear) versus values (true, false).

    Does an atomic_flag structure have both states (set, clear) and values (true, false)? Can it have all four combinations?

    Another issue is 'set' is used both as a verb and a noun.

    Another issue is: While the test is atomic, and the set is atomic, it is not clear that both test and set are part of the same atomic operation.

    I have been told that the same issues exists in the C++ standard (29.7 [atomics.flag]).

    There was discussion of these topics on the WG14 reflector (around messages 13067 to 13073)

    One person in the discussion would like the value zero (from default static initialization) to be the clear state. They also mentioned DR 421.

    Based upon the email discussion, the intent was that flags logically have exactly two states: "set" and "clear". The test_and_set operation returns true if it was "set", and false if it was "clear". Test_and_set sets the state to "set", and the clear operations set the state to "clear". The value zero need not be the "clear" state.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Replace

    7.17.8.1 The atomic_flag_test_and_set functions
    #2: Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to true.

    #3: Atomically, the value of the object immediately before the effects.

    7.17.8.2 The atomic_flag_clear functions
    #2: Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to false.

    with:

    7.17.8.1 The atomic_flag_test_and_set functions
    #2: Tests the state of the flag pointed to by object and then sets the flag, as a single atomic operation.

    #3: Returns true if the flag was set when tested or false otherwise.

    7.17.8.2 The atomic_flag_clear functions
    #2: Atomically clears the flag pointed to by object.

    Add to the rationale in the section on atomic flag:

    The atomic flag type is defined in terms of states, not values, as the value zero (false) need not be the "clear" state. The committee knows of one implementation where zero is the "set" state.

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1853 was provided and discussed, revised, discussed further, and a further paper was solicited. In particular, the committee did not like "converted to a _Bool" because it implies some unspecified arithmetic conversion.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1908 was provided and discussed. "Clears" the flag was vaguely troubling and a new approach was offered:

    In 7.17.8.1p2, change:

    Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to true.

    to:

    Atomically places the atomic flag pointed to by object in the set state and returns the value corresponding to the immediately preceding state.

    In 7.17.8.1p3, change:

    Atomically, the value of the object immediately before the effects.

    to:

    The atomic_flag_test_and_set functions return the value that corresponds to the state of the atomic flag immediately before the effects. The return value true corresponds to the set state and the return value false corresponds to the clear state.

    In 7.17.8.2p2, change:

    Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to false.

    to:

    Atomically places the atomic flag pointed to by object into the clear state.



    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The direction developed late at the last meeting is adopted as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.17.8.1p2, change:

    Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to true.

    to:

    Atomically places the atomic flag pointed to by object in the set state and returns the value corresponding to the immediately preceding state.

    In 7.17.8.1p3, change:

    Atomically, the value of the object immediately before the effects.

    to:

    The atomic_flag_test_and_set functions return the value that corresponds to the state of the atomic flag immediately before the effects. The return value true corresponds to the set state and the return value false corresponds to the clear state.

    In 7.17.8.2p2, change:

    Atomically sets the value pointed to by object to false.

    to:

    Atomically places the atomic flag pointed to by object into the clear state.



    DR 439 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 465, or summary at top



    DR 454

    DR 452 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 455, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
    Submission Date: 2013-10-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1777
    Subject: ATOMIC_VAR_INIT (issues 3 and 4)
    Related: DR 422 and DR 427

    Summary

    I see several issues with ATOMIC_VAR_INIT. They could be turned into one combined defect report, or separate defects, or folded into DR 422.

    Consider the following code:

    
    #include <stdatomic.h>
    int main(void){
     atomic_int guide1 = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(42); /* known value(42); WHAT STATE? */
     atomic_int guide2;        /* indeterminate value; indeterminate state */
     atomic_int guide3 = 42;   /* known value(42); indeterminate state */
    static atomic_int guide4;  /* known value(0); valid state */
    static atomic_int guide5 = 42; /* known value(42); valid state */
     atomic_int guide6;
     atomic_init(&guide6, 42); /* known value(42); initialized state */
     return 0;
    }
    
    

    What is the status of the additional state carried for guide1?

    Is the state of guide1 the same as what guide6 has? If yes, does "initialization-compatible" mean do the same thing as if atomic_init() of the same object with the same value?

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum


    Apr 2014

    Proposed Committee Response

    The ATOMIC_VAR_INIT macro prepares an atomic value that includes any extra state necessary for a non-lock-free type. Initialization, by definition, ignores all previous state. Assignment must honor the extra state that would indicate another atomic operation in progress; such an assignment takes the non-atomic corresponding value resulting from removing all qualifiers including atomic from the value expression, and will manipulate the extra state held in the object to assure proper atomic assignment semantics. ATOMIC_VAR_INIT produces a value appropriate for initialization because it will have any necessary extra state, whereas a value suitable for assignment is the non-qualified version of the assignment expression.

    All uses of ATOMIC_VAR_INIT other than for initialization result in implicitly undefined behavior.


    DR 452 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 455, or summary at top



    DR 455

    DR 454 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 456, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman (USA)
    Submission Date: 2013-10-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1777
    Subject: ATOMIC_VAR_INIT issue 5

    Summary

    I see several issues with ATOMIC_VAR_INIT. They could be turned into one combined defect report, or separate defects, or folded into DR 422.

    Consider the following code:

    
    #include <stdatomic.h>
    int main(void){
     atomic_int guide1 = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(42); /* known value(42); WHAT STATE? */
     atomic_int guide2;        /* indeterminate value; indeterminate state */
     atomic_int guide3 = 42;   /* known value(42); indeterminate state */
    static atomic_int guide4;  /* known value(0); valid state */
    static atomic_int guide5 = 42; /* known value(42); valid state */
     atomic_int guide6;
     atomic_init(&guide6, 42); /* known value(42); initialized state */
     return 0;
    }
    
    

    What is the status of the additional state carried for guide1?

    Is the state of guide1 the same as what guide6 has? If yes, does "initialization-compatible" mean do the same thing as if atomic_init() of the same object with the same value?

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    There were was no substantiative further discussion.

    Proposed Committee Response

    Interoperability with C++ atomics must be done by macros that use C++'s declarative syntax for atomic variables. As such there is no direct compatibility issue as is asserted, and 7.17.2.1#2 shall remain.

    DR 454 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 456, or summary at top



    DR 456

    DR 455 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 457, or summary at top


    Submitter: Rajan Bhakta
    Submission Date: 2014-03-05
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1798
    Subject: Compile time definition of UINTN_C(value)

    Summary

    With reference to ISO/IEC WG14 N1569, subclause 7.20.4.1: The macro UINTN_C(value) shall expand to an integer constant expression corresponding to the type uint_leastN_t.

    7.20.4 p1 imposes a stricter requirement on the form of the expansion; it must be an integer constant (for which paragraph 2 points to 6.4.4.1).

    The type described in 7.20.4 p3 for the result of the expansion has an interesting property; we observe this for uint_least16_t without reference to the UINT16_C macro by using u'\0' in a context where it will be first promoted as part of the usual arithmetic conversions:

    #include <assert.h>

    #if u'\0' - 1 < 0
      // Types: #if (uint_least16_t) - (signed int) < (signed int)
      // Due to 6.10.1 p4, near the reference to footnote 167,
      // after applying the integer promotions as part of 6.3.1.8 p1
      // to the operands of the subtraction, the expression becomes:
      // Types: #if (unsigned int) - (signed int) < (signed int)
      // Following 6.3.1.8 p1 through to the last point gives:
      // Types: #if (unsigned int) - (unsigned int) < (signed int)
      // Result: false
    # error Expected large unsigned value.
    #endif

    int main(void) {
      // Types: assert((uint_least16_t) - (signed int) < (signed int))
      // Assuming that signed int can represent all values of uint_least16_t,
      // after applying the integer promotions as part of 6.3.1.8 p1
      // to the operands of the subtraction, the expression becomes:
      // Types: assert((signed int) - (signed int) < (signed int))
      // Result: true
      assert(u'\0' - 1 < 0);
      return 0;
    }

    The code presented should neither fail to compile nor abort when executed (for example) on a system using two's complement and 8, 16 and 32 bits (respectively) for char, short and int with no padding bits.

    Consider the case for N = 8 or 16 on systems with INT_MAX as +2147483647, UCHAR_MAX as 255 and USHRT_MAX as 65535: it is unclear how a macro can be formed such that it expands to an integer constant that has the promoted signed int type in phase 7 of translation and also the promoted unsigned int type in phase 4 of translation without special (non-standard) support from the compiler.

    Even if the requirement for an integer constant is relaxed to only require an integer constant expression, the case for N = 8 on systems with INT_MAX as +32767 and UCHAR_MAX as 255 remains a problem without the use of casts (since uint_least16_t, for which we can form a literal, has different promotion behaviour from uint_least8_t).

    Implementations seen:

    1. #define UINT8_C(c) c ## U
    2. #define UINT8_C(c) c

    DR 209 seemed to try to address the issue of needing special compiler support in order to define the macros for integer constants; however, the problem seems to remain.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    1. Add in suffixes for char and short literals.
    2. Remove the UINT{8,16}_C macros from the standard.

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Proposed Committee Response

    The committee believes that DR209 is still appropriate in that "compiler magic" must be used for the implementation of these macros. The committee does not consider this a defect.

    As such, both proposed resolutions were found inappropriate.


    DR 455 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 457, or summary at top



    DR 457

    DR 456 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 458, or summary at top


    Submitter: David Keaton (suggested by Jens Gustedt)
    Submission Date: 2014-03-13
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1802
    Subject: The ctime_s function in Annex K defined incorrectly

    Summary

    The ctime_s function in Annex K was defined analogously to ctime, and some of the text from the definition of ctime was copied and modified slightly.

    K.3.8.2.2p4 states that ctime_s is equivalent to the following.

    asctime_s(s, maxsize, localtime_s(timer))

    In this case, the text from the original ctime definition was not quite modified enough.  The localtime_s function takes two arguments and the above code only supplies one.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In K.3.8.2.2p4, replace

    asctime_s(s, maxsize, localtime_s(timer))

    with the following.

    asctime_s(s, maxsize, localtime_s(timer, &(struct tm){ 0 }))

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In K.3.8.2.2p4, replace

    asctime_s(s, maxsize, localtime_s(timer))

    with the following.

    asctime_s(s, maxsize, localtime_s(timer, &(struct tm){ 0 }))


    DR 456 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 458, or summary at top



    DR 458

    DR 457 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 459, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-03-18
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1806
    Subject: ATOMIC_XXX_LOCK_FREE macros not constant expressions

    Summary

    Section 7.17.1 Introduction (to section 7.17 Atomics <stdatomic.h>) specifies that the <stdatomic.h> header define a number of macros having the form ATOMIC_XXX_LOCK_FREE that indicate the lock-free property of the corresponding atomic types. No further description of the macros is provided here.

    Section 7.17.5 Lock-free property, then goes on to specify that the atomic lock-free macros (presumably the same ones as those listed in 7.17.1) expand to one of three values: 0, 1, or 2.

    Neither of the two sections above, nor any other in the standard, specifies whether or not the macros are required to expand to constant expressions usable in preprocessor #if directives. This is in contrast to some other standard macros such as those defined in <limits.h> which are typically so specified using language such as:

    The values given below shall be replaced by constant expressions suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives.

    As discussed in the thread starting with SC22WG14.13216, the only purpose for the existence of the ATOMIC_XXX_LOCK_FREE macros is to be able to write more efficient code by relying on their use in preprocessor #if conditionals. Thus, the absence of the requirement that they expand to constant expressions makes the macros unsuitable for that purpose.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In section 7.17.1, modify paragraph 3 as indicated below:

    ...which expand to constant expressions suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives and which indicate the lock-free property of the corresponding atomic types (both signed and unsigned); and


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In section 7.17.1 paragraph 3 change:

    ...which indicate the lock-free property of the corresponding atomic types (both signed and unsigned); and

    to
    ...which expand to constant expressions suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives and which indicate the lock-free property of the corresponding atomic types (both signed and unsigned); and


    DR 457 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 459, or summary at top



    DR 459

    DR 458 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 460, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-03-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1807
    Subject: atomic_load missing const qualifier

    Summary

    The synopsis of the atomic_load pair of generic functions specified in 7.17.7.2 shows that they accept pointers to a volatile- (bot not const-) qualified type:

              #include <stdatomic.h>
    
              C atomic_load(volatile A *object);
              C atomic_load_explicit(volatile A *object,
                                     memory_order order);
          

    The absence of the const qualifier implies that the functions cannot be called with an argument of type const A* since there is no such conversion.

    However, since neither function modifies its argument, there is no need to prevent it from being called with an argument of type const A*. And, in fact, the latest draft C++ standard as of this writing, N3936, does provide an overload of each function that takes a const volatile pointer.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In section 7.17.7.2, paragraph 1, Synopsis, modify the declarations of the atomic_load pair of generic functions as indicated below:

              #include <stdatomic.h>
    
              C atomic_load(const volatile A *object);
              C atomic_load_explicit(const volatile A *object,
                                     memory_order order);
          


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In section 7.17.7.2, paragraph 1, Synopsis, modify the declarations of the atomic_load pair of generic functions from:

              #include <stdatomic.h>
    
              C atomic_load(volatile A *object);
              C atomic_load_explicit(volatile A *object,
                                     memory_order order);
          

    to:

              #include <stdatomic.h>
    
              C atomic_load(const volatile A *object);
              C atomic_load_explicit(const volatile A *object,
                                     memory_order order);
          


    DR 458 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 460, or summary at top



    DR 460

    DR 459 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 461, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-03-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1808
    Subject: aligned_alloc underspecified

    Summary

    The aligned_alloc function specifies the following constraints on its arguments, alignment and size:

    The value of alignment shall be a valid alignment supported by the implementation and the value of size shall be an integral multiple of alignment.

    Therefore, the behavior of the function is undefined when either constraint is violated.

    According to section 6.2.8, paragraph 1, the greatest alignment a conforming implementation is required to support (known as fundamental alignment) is _Alignof(max_align_t). Furthermore, according to paragraph 2 of the same section, whether alignments greater than the fundamental alignment (known as extended alignments) are supported and in what contexts is implementation-defined.

    The standard specifies no mechanism by which programs could determine whether an extended alignment is supported by an implementation, or whether the aligned_alloc function is among the contexts where an extended alignment is supported.

    As a result, there is no way for strictly conforming programs to use the aligned_alloc function with an alignment argument greater than the result of _Alignof(max_align_t). Since the malloc function returns objects that meet the same alignment requirement, this restriction makes aligned_alloc useless in portable programs.

    This restriction is unnecessary since it's possible, and in fact nearly trivial given access to the internal details of the memory allocator, to implement an efficient aligned_function that fails when its arguments don't meet the specified requirements.

    As a data point, the POSIX Advanced Realtime function posix_memalign, as well as the historical BSD memalign function, are both required to return a null pointer when either of their arguments don't meet the specified requirements (in addition to setting errno to EINVAL.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The proposed corrigendum below changes the standard to require aligned_alloc to fail by returning a null pointer when either of its constraints is violated.

    In section 7.22.3.1, modify paragraph 2 as indicated below:

    The aligned_alloc function allocates space for an object whose alignment is specified by alignment, whose size is specified by size, and whose value is indeterminate. TIf the value of alignment shall be is not a valid alignment supported by the implementation andor the value of size shall beis not an integral multiple of alignment the function shall fail by returning a null pointer.

    In addition, in section J.2 Undefined behavior, remove the following bullet:

    — The alignment requested of the aligned_alloc function is not valid or not supported by the implementation, or the size requested is not an integral multiple of the alignment (7.22.3.1).

    If the proposal above isn't acceptable, then an alternative solution to consider that would allow aligned_alloc to be used even in strictly conforming programs is to add a new function to determine whether a given alignment is supported by an implementation. For example:

    _Bool alignment_is_valid (size_t alignment);

    Returns

    The alignment_is_valid function returns non-zero if the value specified by alignment is a valid alignment argument to the aligned_alloc function, and zero otherwise.


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees that the first proposal in the suggested technical corrigendum should be adopted.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In section 7.22.3.1, change paragraph 2 from:

    The aligned_alloc function allocates space for an object whose alignment is specified by alignment, whose size is specified by size, and whose value is indeterminate. The value of alignment shall be a valid alignment supported by the implementation and the value of size shall be an integral multiple of alignment.

    to:
    The aligned_alloc function allocates space for an object whose alignment is specified by alignment, whose size is specified by size, and whose value is indeterminate. If the value of alignment is not a valid alignment supported by the implementation or the value of size is not an integral multiple of alignment the function shall fail by returning a null pointer.

    In addition, in section J.2 Undefined behavior, remove the following bullet:

    — The alignment requested of the aligned_alloc function is not valid or not supported by the implementation, or the size requested is not an integral multiple of the alignment (7.22.3.1).


    DR 459 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 461, or summary at top



    DR 461

    DR 460 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 462, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-03-25
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1812
    Subject: problems with references to objects in signal handlers

    Summary

    We believe there are two problems in section 7.14.1.1 The signal function, paragraph 5, which specifies the constraints under which signal handlers can access objects declared in other scopes. The problems are summarized in the following two subsections. The section titled Suggested Technical Corrigendum then proposes a correction to both.

    Section 7.14.1.1 The signal function, paragraph 5, specifies the following constraints. Note, in particular, to use of the word "refers," and the reference to objects with "static or thread storage duration" underscored in the text below.

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler.

    Underspecification of referring to objects

    The standard doesn't formally define the term refer but its uses in the text suggest that it denotes any use of an object, including one that doesn't involve accessing it. The term access is defined in 3.1 to mean an <execution-time action> to read or modify the value of an object.

    Preventing signal handlers from accessing objects is necessary in order to avoid data races between accesses (reads and writes) to the same object in the rest of the program that are in progress but not completed at the time the signal is delivered.

    However, by making use of the word "refers," the sentence in 7.14.1.1 quoted above implies that even mentioning the name of an object in an unevaluated context such as the sizeof expression, or taking its address is undefined in a signal handler. This restriction is unnecessary, since such references are safe because they cannot introduce any sort of a data race between the signal handler and the rest of the program. Thus, referring to such objects without accessing them should be permitted in conforming programs.

    Furthermore, accessing a const object to read (but not modify) its value also cannot introduce a data race and is safe as well. Thus, the restriction can be relaxed even further to allow signal handlers to read constant objects. Note that const objects are those that are declared const. In particular, accessing an object that was not declared const via a pointer to a const-qualified type does not change the fact that the object itself is not const. This distinction is important to understand that relaxing this constraint cannot introduce the potential for a data race when such a non-const object is modied in the program while it's accessed via a const-qualified pointer in a signal handler.

    The comments in the following example should make this distinction clear:

    const int safe = (1 << SIGINT) | (1 << SIGQUIT);
          int unsafe = (1 << SIGHUP) | (1 << SIGTERM);
    
    volatile sig_atomic_t sigcount [2];
    
    void handler (int signo) {
    
        const int *pmask;   // pointer to const int
    
        // taking the address of any object is safe and should be allowed
        pmask = &safe;
    
        // access to safe should be allowed since it's a const object
        if ((1 << signo) & *pmask)
            ++sigcount [0];
    
        // safe and should be allowed
        pmask = &unsafe;
    
        // access to unsafe remains undefined since it's not a const object
        if ((1 << signo) & *pmask)
            ++sigcount [1];
    }

    Missing restriction to access other functions' local objects

    The sentence from paragraph 5 quoted above specifically singles out objects with static or thread storage duration, but permits signal handlers to access objects with automatic storage duration without a similar restriction. However, a signal handler that has access to a local variable defined in another function whose execution is interrupted by the delivery of a signal resulting in the invocation of the signal handler contains the same potential data race as if the two functions both accessed the same object with static storage duration.

    To make clear how this condition could arise, consider the following program which, when atomic_intptr_t is a lock-free type, is strictly conforming according to the letter of the standard despite the data race.

    atomic_intptr_t p;   // assume atomic_intptr_t is lock-free
    
    void handler (int signo) {
        // the following write access should be undefined since it modifies
        // an object with automatic storage duration declared in f
        ++*(int*)p;
    }
    
    void f (void) {
        int i = 0;
        p = (atomic_intptr_t)&i;
    
        signal (SIGINT, handler);
    
        while (i < 7)
            printf ("%i\n", i);
    }

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The proposed corrigendum below changes the standard to remove the unnecessary constraints discussed above, and to add the missing restriction to prevent accessing local variables defined elsewhere in the program. The reference to the lifetime of auto objects makes sure that accesses to local variables defined in signal handlers themselves as well as in functions called from them remain well defined.

    In section 7.14.1.1, modify the first sentence of paragraph 5 as indicated below:

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers toaccesses any non-const object with static or thread storage duration, or any non-const object with automatic storage duration whose lifetime started before the signal handler has been entered, that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by...

    In addition, make the corresponding change to section J.2 Undefined behavior.


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1874 was submitted and discussed, again, as a defect, rather than as a new proposal, and the suggested changes to allow new behavior were again rejected. It was noted that a const volatile object implemented in hardware, such as random number generator, might not provide a consistent value if accessed from a signal handler, and so there was general agreement that any changes in this area warrant very careful consideration.

    Proposed Committee Response

    Extending the behavior as requested is a feature and appropriate as input to the next revision of this Standard. It was noted that a const volatile object that might seem acceptable to reference from a signal handler might not be if it were implemented in hardware (e.g. a hardware random number generator).

    DR 460 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 462, or summary at top



    DR 462

    DR 461 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 463, or summary at top


    Submitter: Robert Seacord
    Submission Date: 2014-03-25
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1813
    Subject: Clarifying objects accessed in signal handlers

    Summary

    It appears the intent of the committee in Subclause 5.1.2.3 paragraph 5 was to allow lock-free atomic objects or objects of type volatile sig_atomic_t to be accessed from a signal handler.  Objects of type atomic_flag are an obvious choice operations on an object of type atomic_flag are required to be lock free. However, objects of type atomic_flag can only be meaningfully accessed by a call to a function, and calls to these functions from a signal handler are undefined behavior according to subclause 7.14.1.1 paragraph 5.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Change subclause 7.14.1.1 paragraph 5 from:

     

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler. Furthermore, if such a call to the signal function results in a SIG_ERR return, the value of errno is indeterminate.252)

     

    to:

     

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, the atomic_flag_test_and_set functions, the atomic_flag_clear functions, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler. Furthermore, if such a call to the signal function results in a SIG_ERR return, the value of errno is indeterminate.252)

     

    Sublcause J.2 Undefined behavior. Page 566

     

    Change:

     

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).

     

    to:

     

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, the atomic_flag_test_and_set functions, the atomic_flag_clear functions, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).


    Apr 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The Suggested Technical Corrigendum was accepted as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Upon further consideration, since by implication 5.1.2.3p5 allows by implication any of the atomic functions on lock-free atomic objects, the following revision to the Suggested Technical Corrigendum was substantially adopted from the new paper N1887

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum (superceded)

    Change subclause 7.14.1.1 paragraph 5 from:

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler. Furthermore, if such a call to the signal function results in a SIG_ERR return, the value of errno is indeterminate.252)

    to:

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than

    In subclause J.2 Undefined behavior, change:

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).

    to:

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, the atomic functions from stdatomic.h (when the atomic arguments are lock-free) , the atomic_is_lock_free function with any atomic argument, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).


    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee noted that atomic_init was not safe to call. It was decided that the best place to say this was in the atomic_init description as a pattern to follow for future possible additions. As such, the following revised Proposed Technical Corrigendum was provided and accepted.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change subclause 7.14.1.1 paragraph 5 from:

    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function with the first argument equal to the signal number corresponding to the signal that caused the invocation of the handler. Furthermore, if such a call to the signal function results in a SIG_ERR return, the value of errno is indeterminate.252
    to
    If the signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler refers to any object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or the signal handler calls any function in the standard library other than

    Add a new paragraph after 7.17.2.2 paragraph 3:

    If a signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, the behavior is undefined if the signal handler calls the atomic_init generic function.

    In subclause J.2 Undefined behavior, change:

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).

    to

    A signal occurs other than as the result of calling the abort or raise function, and the signal handler refers to an object with static or thread storage duration that is not a lock-free atomic object other than by assigning a value to an object declared as volatile sig_atomic_t, or calls any function in the standard library other than the abort function, the _Exit function, the quick_exit function, the functions in <stdatomic.h> (except where explicitly stated otherwise) when the atomic arguments are lock-free, the atomic_is_lock_free function with any atomic argument, or the signal function (for the same signal number) (7.14.1.1).

    DR 461 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 463, or summary at top



    DR 463

    DR 462 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 464, or summary at top


    Submitter: Aaron Ballman
    Submission Date: 2014-04-02
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1817
    Subject: Left-shifting into the sign bit

    Summary

    Harmonizing left-shift with C++14

    It is not uncommon to see code such as:

    signed someint_t min_value = 1 << (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(someint_t));

    However, left-shifting a one bit into the sign bit is undefined behavior, despite the fact that the majority of (twos-complement) architectures handle it properly.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    6.5.7p4 should be modified to read:
    The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the result is E1 x 2E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value representable in the result type. If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value, and E1 x 2E2 is representable in the corresponding unsigned type of the result type, then that value, converted to the result type, is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
    C++ addressed this in C++14 with DR1457 with identical wording modifications.

    Apr 2014 meeting

    Proposed Committee Response

    This is not a defect.

    The committee will track this and consider it for the next revision of the standard.


    DR 462 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 464, or summary at top



    DR 464

    DR 463 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 466, or summary at top


    Submitter: David Keaton (suggested by Max Woodbury)
    Submission Date: 2014-06-27
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1842
    Subject: Clarifying the Behavior of the #line Directive

    Summary

    Context:

    In a distributed development environment, the exact file name passed to the compiler or preprocessor may vary from site to site. It is therefore desirable to be able to set the file name as seen by __FILE__ and elsewhere to a uniform value. The mechanism to do this is the '#line <num> "<string>"' form of the '#line' preprocessor directive. It is also necessary that such a directive leave the line numbering sequence unchanged. Further, it is desirable that edits that change the location of the directive in the source module should not require modification to the directive and that comments embedded in the directive likewise do not have to be accounted for.

    Searches of the online literature show that a directive of the form '#line __LINE__ "string"' is expected to have this property.

    Despite this, at least one compiler/preprocessor does not allow this.

    Technical argument:

    The value substituted for the predefined macro '__LINE__' is specified in 6.10.8.1p1 as the presumed line number of the current source line. The presumed line number is initially (6.10.4p2) the number of newline characters (or their equivalent) seen in phase 1 of the translation process, plus 1, at the time of substitution. (Note that this is not the same as the time of tokenization, which is where the failing compilers make their mistake.) The mechanism for transferring this count between phase 1 and phase 4, where macro substitution takes place, is not specified, but may be presumed to exist and be reliable. (If it were not, the __LINE__ predefined macro would be useless.) That makes the question 'when does the substitution take place?'

    Macro substitution in directives is a separate issue from macro expansion in code. It does not always take place. If and when it occurs depends on the directive and the details of its form. That means the entire directive has to be 'in hand' in order to be evaluated, and that means, in turn, that the newline that terminates the directive has to have been seen. The standard goes to some length to specify the various directive forms and all include the terminating newline in their specification.

    Therefore, when a substitution is made for '__LINE__', its value should be the line count following the end of the directive, which is the same as the line number of next line in the source module. This is precisely the value that produces the desired property of the '#line __LINE__ "string"' directive.

    Correction requested:

    While there is no need to change the standard's normative text, a note that '#line __LINE__ "string"' and similar directives leaves line numbering unchanged would both be educational and make misinterpretations more difficult.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Append the following to footnote 177 in 6.10.8.1p1:

    #line __LINE__ "newfilename" changes the presumed file name without changing the presumed line number.



    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee discussed the Proposed Technical Corrigendum from N1842 and found that it didn't sufficiently clarify the issue. Investigation during the meeting revealed that several (in fact all that were tested) compilers did not seem to follow the interpretation of the standard as given in N1842, and that it would be best to acknowledge this as unspecified behavior.

    Proposed Committee Response

    6.10.4 paragraph 2 states that “The line number of the current source line is one greater than the number of new-line characters read or introduced in translation phase 1 (5.1.1.2) while processing the source file to the current token.” Note that it does not say the number of new-line characters that exist prior to the current token; it says the number of new-line characters that have been read while processing to the current token.

    In the case of the #line directive of the form

    #line pp-tokens new-line

    there are two possible values for the number of new-line characters that have been read when processing begins on the first pp-token. In a one-pass preprocessor, the line number at the first pp-token will be the number of new-line characters that exist prior to the #line directive, because that number of new-lines will have been read. In a preprocessor that must see the entire directive before processing it, since the directive explicitly includes a new-line, the line number at the first pp-token will be the number of new-line characters that exist prior to the #line directive plus one.

    Therefore, in a #line directive of the form

    #line __LINE__ “filename”

    there are two possible values for __LINE__, which leads to two possible values for the line number following the #line directive. Both are valid.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Add the following footnote to the end of 6.10.4 paragraph 5.

    Because a new-line is explicitly included as part of the #line directive, the number of new-line characters read while processing to the first pp-token may be different depending on whether or not the implementation uses a one-pass preprocessor. Therefore, there are two possible values for the line number following a directive of the form #line __LINE__ new-line.

    Add the following to J.1 Unspecified behavior.

    The line number following a directive of the form #line __LINE__ new-line (6.10.4).

    DR 463 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 466, or summary at top



    DR 465

    DR 453 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 475, or summary at top


    Submitter: David Keaton (suggested by Hans Boehm)
    Submission Date: 2014-07-14
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1847
    Subject: Fixing an inconsistency in atomic_is_lock_free

    Summary

    The C committee intended to adopt the same model for atomics as C++ to ensure compatibility. Somewhere along the way, there was an error in synchronizing with the C++ atomic model. This could have serious consequences for code that needs to share atomic objects between modules written in C and modules written in C++ (for example, in the case of libraries written in one language being used by a program written in the other).

    The C++ standard states the following in 29.4p2.

    The function atomic_is_lock_free (29.6) indicates whether the object is lock-free. In any given program execution, the result of the lock-free query shall be consistent for all pointers of the same type.

    However, the C standard states the following in 7.17.5.1p3.

    The atomic_is_lock_free generic function returns nonzero (true) if and only if the object's operations are lock-free. The result of a lock-free query on one object cannot be inferred from the result of a lock-free query on another object.

    The primary issue is compatibility. Secondarily, if the lock-free property for a given pointer type can change after an algorithm starts, then atomic_is_lock_free cannot be used to select an algorithm in advance if the algorithm will allocate new atomic objects. The C++ model is therefore more useful.

    The error in synchronizing with C++ should be fixed by correcting the behavior of atomic_is_lock_free to be the same in C as in C++.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Replace the following sentence from 7.17.5.1p3

    The result of a lock-free query on one object cannot be inferred from the result of a lock-free query on another object.

    with the following.

    In any given program execution, the result of the lock-free query shall be consistent for all pointers of the same type.


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The Suggested Technical Corrigendum needed revision, and new words were crafted and adopted. One consequence from this change that a NULL pointer is now a valid argument.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    No revisions were deemed necessary. Value 1 remains in 7.17.5p1 for implementations where only the runtime can determine if an operation on a particular type is lock-free due to architectural differences.
    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    As solicited, a new paper N1976 was presented and discussed to clarify that null pointers to atomic types are allowed and thus can be used at compile time. After discussion, the Proposed Technical Corrigendum was modified to incorporate this point as a non-normative explanatory footnote.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change 7.17.5.1 paragraph 2 from:

    The atomic_is_lock_free generic function indicates whether or not the object pointed to by obj is lock-free.

    to:

    The atomic_is_lock_free generic function indicates whether or not atomic operations on objects of the type pointed to by obj are lock-free.



    Change 7.17.5.1 paragraph 3 from:

    The atomic_is_lock_free generic function returns nonzero (true) if and only if the object's operations are lock-free. The result of a lock-free query on one object cannot be inferred from the result of a lock-free query on another object.

    to:

    The atomic_is_lock_free generic function returns nonzero (true) if and only if atomic operations on objects of the type pointed to by the argument are lock-free. In any given program execution, the result of the lock-free query shall be consistent for all pointers of the same type.new

    new)obj may be a null pointer.



    DR 453 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 475, or summary at top



    DR 466

    DR 464 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 468, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-09-19
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1865
    Subject: scope of a for loop control declaration

    Summary

    The scope of a for loop control declaration in C is different from that in C++. In particluar, while in C the declaration establishes its own scope in which the scope of the body of the for statement is nested, in C++ the two are one and the same. The practical implication of this difference is that while in C a declaration in the body can hide the for loop declaration, in C++ such a re-declaration would be ill-formed. The following example demonstrates the difference:

            static inline int f (void) {
                for (int i = 0; ; ) {
                    long i = 1;   // valid C, invalid C++
                    // ...
                    return i;     // (perhaps unexpectedly) returns 1 in C
                }
            }
          

    During a discussion of this difference on the mailing list (starting with post C22WG14.13355), it was noted that the re-declaration could lead to subtle bugs.

    The incompatibility between rules used by the two languages also makes writing headers intended to be used by both C and C++ that contain inline functions more prone to error than necessary.

    In addition, it was noted (by Larry Jones in SC22WG14.13359) that the intent was for C99, where the ability to declare a for loop control variable was first added, to follow the C++ rules, but that it had been missed that the C++ rules ultimately adopted by ISO/IEC 14882:1998 changed from those of The Annotated C++ Reference Manual that was initially used to craft the C rules.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The author recognizes that changing the C rules could render some existing programs invalid. However, it is likely that such programs are broken/buggy and thus a breaking change would result in correcting such latent bugs.

    Therefore, the proposed corrigendum suggests to align the C rules with those of C++ by adding a new paragraph to section 6.2.1 Scopes of identifiers as follows.

    Names declared in clause-1 of the for statement are local to the for statement and shall not be redeclared in a subsequent condition of that statement nor in the outermost block of the controlled statement.

    Note: the text of the paragraph is aligned with the corresponding paragraph 4 of section 3.3.3 Block scope of ISO/IEC 14882:2014 (and section 3.3.2 Block scope of ISO/IEC 14882:1998).



    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee accepted this as a DR because there was an intent to not be gratuitously different than C++, and yet this small drift occurred.

    Proposed Committee Response

    This small and unintended difference between the two languages is known and some of its uses were discussed. It also turns out that some C++ compilers also know and allow this construct with a warning. Overall, the committee concludes that this is not an area we wish to change.

    DR 464 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 468, or summary at top



    DR 467

    DR 444 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 469, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2014-09-26
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1870, N1871
    Subject: maximum representable finite description vs math

    Summary

    formula for maximum representable finite (normalized) floating-point numbers in 5.2.4.2.2#12, and epsilon floating-point numbers in 5.2.4.2.2#13.

    Details

    The math formula is for a normalized number, while the words are missing 'normalized'. Now, in the floating-point model in paragraph 2, the maximum finite number is the same as the maximum finite normalized number, so it did not matter.

    However, if long double is a pair of doubles (not matching the model in paragraph 2), then there can be finite numbers larger than the largest normalized finite number. The largest normalized finite number is DBL_MAX*(1.+DBL_EPSILON/2.), while the largest finite number can be DBL_MAX*2.

    Also, if long double is a pair of doubles (not matching the model in paragraph 2), then 'least value greater than 1 that is representable in the given floating point type' is (for double) 1.0+DBL_TRUE_MIN. That makes the difference DBL_TRUE_MIN, which is not the same at the math formula (b to the power (1-p)).

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In 5.2.4.2.2#13, add 'normalized' between 'least and 'value.

    In 5.2.4.2.2#12, add 'normalized' between 'finite' and 'floating-point'.

    Add a new paragraph:

    12b The values given in the following list shall be replaced by constant expressions with implementation-defined values that are greater than or equal to those shown:

    -- maximum representable finite floating-point number (footnote),

    (footnote): Need not be normalized.



    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee accepts the correction of "normalized" but concludes that adding the suggested macros is a feature and out of scope for a DR.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    There has been discussion of this Proposed Technical Corrigendum on the WG 14 email reflector starting with (SC22WG14.13764) LDBL_MAX suggesting that since double double implementations do not follow (nor are provided by) the IEEE model that the implementation is free to define additional macros to describe the behavior as they see fit. To some degree a consensus on LDBL_MAX was formed, and the following words are provided as food for further committee thought.

    In 5.2.4.2.2#12, first item change the phrase

    maximum representable finite floating-point number, [math formula]

    to

    maximum representable finite floating-point number; if that value is normalized, its value is [math formula]

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees with the reflector discussion.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 5.2.4.2.2#12, first item change the phrase

    maximum representable finite floating-point number, [ math formula ]
    to
    maximum representable finite floating-point number; if that value is normalized, its value is [ math formula ],

    DR 444 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 469, or summary at top



    DR 468

    DR 466 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 470, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2014-09-19
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1872
    Subject: strncpy_s clobbers buffer past null

    Summary

    K.3.7.1.4, p5 permits strncpy_s to "clobber" characters in the destination buffer past the terminating null:

    All elements following the terminating null character (if any) written by strncpy_s in the array of s1max characters pointed to by s1 take unspecified values when strncpy_s returns. 420)
    Footnote 420 explains that the intent is to allow implementations to copy characters from s2 to s1 while simultaneously checking if any of those characters are null. Such an approach might write a character to every element of s1 before discovering that the first element should be set to the null character.

    This intent is to allow efficient implementations to make a single pass over the source sequence that simultaneously copies characters and checks the runtime constraints. (Otherwise two passes would be required, one to compute the length of the source sequence and another to copy it.)

    It has been pointed out that the implementation latitude granted by this text goes too far, since the function only might need to write past the null after a constraint violation. Otherwise, when all runtime constraints are satisfied, the function stops copying characters after either the first null is encountered or all n characters have been copied.

    Since the mention of unspecified values tends to raise security concerns about information leakage, and since permitting the implementations to modify the contents of the destination buffer past the terminating null on success serves no useful purpose, the requirements on the function can and should be tightened up.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The proposed corrigendum below tightens up the requirements on the function so as to leave intact the contents of the destination buffer past the terminating null on success, while allowing it to clobber its contents on runtime constraint violation.

    Modify K.3.7.1.4, p5 as indicated below:

    All elements following the terminating null character (if any) written by strncpy_s in the array of s1max characters pointed to by s1 take unspecified values when strncpy_s returns a non-zero value. 420)


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change K.3.7.1.4, p5 from

    All elements following the terminating null character (if any) written by strncpy_s in the array of s1max characters pointed to by s1 take unspecified values when strncpy_s returns. 420)
    to
    All elements following the terminating null character (if any) written by strncpy_s in the array of s1max characters pointed to by s1 take unspecified values when strncpy_s returns a non-zero value. 420)

    DR 466 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 470, or summary at top



    DR 469

    DR 467 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 473, or summary at top


    Submitter: Torvald Riegel
    Submission Date: 2014-10-07
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1881
    Subject: lock ownership vs. thread termination

    Summary

    If a mutex M is acquired by a thread T, and afterwards T terminates without releasing ownership of M, then the resulting state after termination of T seems to be unspecified.

    Specifically, N1570 7.26.4.5p2 states:

    The mtx_trylock function endeavors to lock the mutex pointed to by mtx. If the mutex is already locked, the function returns without blocking.

    However, there is no statement about whether a mutex whose owner has terminated remains locked. This seems to be a source of confusion, and it affects implementations. C++11 specifies that such a case results in undefined behavior (see 30.4.1.2.1p5). On the other hand, POSIX wants (PThreads) mutexes to remain locked in this case (see Austin Group Bug 755).

    From an implementation perspective, the C++11 semantics are more practical because they do not require implementations to maintain identities of threads that do not exist any more. For example, with C++11 semantics, an implementation can just use a thread ID to identify an owner, even if another thread eventually reuses the same ID (e.g., a process ID) after the former owning thread terminated. In contrast, the POSIX semantics require an implementation to avoid ABA issues on the thread identities (i.e., the same value representing different states of ownership). This effectively results in a higher runtime overhead for lock acquisition or for lock initialization of at least recursive mutexes, or address space leakage (or other workarounds).

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    I would like the expected behavior to be explicitly specified. To me, C should do what C++11 states. In particular, add the following or a similar sentence at an appropriate place:

    The behavior of a program is undefined if a thread terminates while owning a mutex.

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee is sympathetic to this concern. A review uncovered the possible need to further specify the behavior of a recursive mutex. A new paper was solicited to discuss this and other issues and their proposed resolutions.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1907 was presented.

    Issue 1 from that paper has already been addressed in DR414

    Issue 2, that recursive mutex behavior is essentially unspecified, needs addressing, but the words provided are unclear about accounting for additional lock and matching unlocks. It may be necessary to introduce the notion of counting to express the nested pattern succinctly.

    Issue 3, from the original paper, was thought by the committee to be worth addressing, although in which section was not clear to the committee.

    A revised paper was solicited.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    No new papers were presented and a new paper was again solicited. It may be that the resolution to DR 414 be folded into any Suggested Technical Corrigendum as well.

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Papers N2019 and N2026 were provided and discussed as potential resolutions. The second paper borrows from the similar POSIX description and makes the recursion count more explicit, and introduces acquire terminology. The preceding section on condition variables would be impacted by such changes, however, and a combined paper was solicited.

    Section 2 from N2019 needs to be reconciled with the first item from the PTC of DR 416. It was also suggested that or through program termination be added.

    DR 479 and DR 493 raise other issues that must be found in any committee approved Proposed Technical Corrigendum to this DR.

    DR 467 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 473, or summary at top



    DR 470

    DR 468 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 471, or summary at top


    Submitter: Torvald Riegel, Hans Boehm
    Submission Date: 2014-10-10
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1882
    Subject: mtx_trylock should be allowed to fail spuriously

    Summary

    C11 does not appear to allow mtx_trylock to fail spuriously (i.e., return thrd_busy even thought the lock was not acquired, yet eventually acquire the lock if it is not acquired by any thread), but C++11 does (see 30.4.1.1/16):

    An implementation may fail to obtain the lock even if it is not held by any other thread. [ Note: This spurious failure is normally uncommon, but allows interesting implementations based on a simple compare and exchange (Clause 29). -- end note ] An implementation should ensure that try_lock() does not consistently return false in the absence of contending mutex acquisitions.

    It might be better to point out explicitly that programmers should treat mtx_trylock as if spurious failure were allowed, since the memory model is intentionally too weak to support correct reasoning that is based on a return value of thrd_busy. There has been debate on this issue, and we would prefer the standard to be clearer. Consider the following example:

    
    Thread 1:
    
      v1 = 1;
    
      mtx_lock(l1);
    
    
    
    Thread 2:
    
      r1 = mtx_trylock(l1);
    
      while (r1 == thrd_success /* was unlocked */) {
    
        unlock(l1);
    
        r1 = mtx_trylock(l1);
    
      }
    
      r2 = v1;
    
      out(r2);
    
    

    This program is not data-race-free according to C11, independently of whether mtx_trylock is allowed to fail spuriously or not; the happens-before-based definition of a data race and the current specification of synchronizes-with relations between mutex operations makes it clear that the program above has a data race on v1.

    However, if spurious failures are not allowed, an intuitive understanding of the memory model in the sense that everything will appear to be sequentially consistent if only locks are used to synchronize does not hold anymore. The intuitive understanding would make the program above correct; in particular the store to v1 by the first thread would be expected to "happen before" the load from v1 by the second thread.

    Therefore, to make an intuitive understanding of the C11 memory model and locks match the actual specification, it would be helpful to point out that programmers should assume mtx_trylock to fail spuriously. Otherwise, without spurious failure, we have cases like the example above in which two operations race according to the specification in spite of the fact that they intuitively can't execute at the same time.

    Allowing spurious failures does not affect the typical uses of mtx_trylock, for example to acquire several locks without risk of deadlock. It does rule out uses like the example above, however, in which locks are attempted to be used as a replacement for atomics.

    (Note that we are not arguing for specifying that mtx_lock should synchronize with a mtx_trylock that returns thrd_busy. This would make the implementation of lock acquisition less efficient on architectures such as ARM or PowerPC. In particular, an atomic_compare_exchange or similar that transitions the lock's state from not acquired to acquired would have to use memory_order_acq_rel instead of memory_order_acquire.)

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    It seems that the normative specification already states the preferred semantics, although the return value specification for thrd_busy may make readers believe that this return code allows one to infer a certain ordering (see the example above).

    We propose to add a clarifying note at an appropriate place (e.g., in 7.26.4.5p3):

    Programmers should treat mtx_trylock as if spurious failures were allowed; the memory model is intentionally too weak to support reasoning based on a return value of thrd_busy.

    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    A spurious failure can occur on PPC/ARM style architectures if, after the load-word-and-reserve instruction is issued the operating system schedules the task out, and upon resumption the corresponding store-word fails because the reservation is lost, even if the lock is unlocked. This failure can be seen by mtx_trylock if it is implemented with atomic_compare_exchange_weak where this failure can occur.

    A new paper was solicited to extract the corresponding words from C++ so as to keep the two standards as close as possible in this area.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N1922 was presented and adopted with an editorial improvement.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.26.4.5 replace paragraph 3

    The mtx_trylock function returns thrd_success on success, or thrd_busy if the resource requested is already in use, or thrd_error if the request could not be honored.

    with

    The mtx_trylock function returns thrd_success on success, or thrd_busy if the resource requested is already in use, or thrd_error if the request could not be honored. mtx_trylock may spuriously fail to lock an unused resource, in which case it shall return thrd_busy.

    DR 468 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 471, or summary at top



    DR 471

    DR 470 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 472, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2014-10-28
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1886
    Subject: Complex math functions cacosh and ctanh

    Summary

    Complex math functions (cacosh (G.6.2.1) and ctanh(G.6.2.6)) are incorrectly specified.
    1. cacosh( 0.0 + I*NaN ) should be NaN + I*pi/2 (not NaN + I*NaN).
    2. Reasons: Mathematically, cacosh(0.0+I*y) = asinh(y) + I*pi/2. Also, C requires cacos(0+I*NaN) to be pi/2+I*NAN, which along with the mathematically identity cacosh(z) = +/-I * cacos(z), means cacosh(0.0 + I*NaN) is NaN + I*pi/2.

    3. ctanh(+0.0+I*NaN) should be 0.0 + I*NaN (not NaN+I*NaN)
    4. ctanh(+0.0+I*INF) should be 0.0 + I*NaN w/ invalid (not NaN+I*NaN w/ invalid)
    5. Reason for above two: Since ctanh(x+I*y) = (sinh(2x) + I*sin(2y)) / (cosh(2x) + cos(2y)), for any rational number y, cos(2y) cannot be exactly -1, so no 0/(1+(-1)),so no 0/0, so no NaN for the real component of the result

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add to G.6.2.1 cacosh before 4th bullet: cacosh(0.0+I*NaN) returns NaN + I*pi/2

    Add to G.6.2.1 cacosh 4th bullet: "non-zero" so it reads: cacosh(x + iNaN) returns NaN + i*NaN and optionally raises the ''invalid'' floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.

    Add to G.6.2.6 ctanh before 3rd bullet: ctanh(0.0+I*INF) returns 0.0+I*NAN and raises the ''invalid'' floating-point exception.

    Add to G.6.2.6 ctanh 3rd bullet: "non-zero" so it reads: ctanh(x + I*INF) returns NaN + i*NaN and raises the ''invalid'' floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.

    Add to G.6.2.6 ctanh before 4th bullet: ctanh(0.0+I*NaN) returns 0.0+I*NAN

    Add to G.6.2.6 ctanh 4th bullet: "non-zero" so it reads: ctanh(x + I*NAN) returns NaN + i*NaN and optionally raises the ''invalid'' floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.


    Oct 2014 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    This DR is derived from N1867. The committee agrees with the Suggested Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Add new paragraph to G.6.2.1 cacosh before 4th bullet:

    cacosh(0.0+iNaN) returns NaN + iπ/2

    Change G.6.2.1 cacosh 4th bullet from:

    cacosh(x + iNaN) returns NaN + iNaN and optionally raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite x.
    to
    cacosh(x + iNaN) returns NaN + iNaN and optionally raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.

    Add new paragraph to G.6.2.6 ctanh before 3rd bullet:

    ctanh(0.0+i∞) returns 0.0+iNAN and raises the “invalid” floating-point exception.

    Change G.6.2.6 ctanh 3rd bullet clause from:

    ctanh(x + i∞) returns NaN + iNaN and raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite x.
    to
    ctanh(x + i∞) returns NaN + iNaN and raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.

    Add new paragraph to G.6.2.6 ctanh before 4th bullet:

    ctanh(0.0+iNaN) returns 0.0+iNAN

    Change G.6.2.6 ctanh 4th bullet from:

    ctanh(x + iNAN) returns NaN + iNaN and optionally raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite x.
    to
    ctanh(x + iNAN) returns NaN + iNaN and optionally raises the “invalid” floating-point exception, for finite non-zero x.

    DR 470 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 472, or summary at top



    DR 472

    DR 471 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 474, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-01-07
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1902
    Subject: Introduction to complex arithmetic in 7.3.1p3 wrong due to CMPLX

    Summary

    The introduction to complex arithmetic in 7.3.1p3 is wrong on several counts, all due to CMPLX.

    The text in question is:

    Each synopsis specifies a family of functions consisting of a principal function with one or more double complex parameters and a double complex or double return value; and other functions with the same name but with f and l suffixes which are corresponding functions with float and long double parameters and return values.

    The items that are wrong are:

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum


    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The following Proposed Technical Corrigendum was presented, discussed, and accepted.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.3.1#3, change:

    Each synopsis specifies a family of functions

    to

    Each synopsis other than the CMPLX macros specifies a family of functions

    (add forward reference to 7.3.9.3)

    DR 471 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 474, or summary at top



    DR 473

    DR 469 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 476, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-01-07
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1903
    Subject: "A range error occurs if x is too large." is misleading

    Summary

    "A range error occurs if x is too large." is misleading (or ambiguous) for expm1 (7.12.6.3p2), erfc (7.12.8.2p2), and lgamma (7.12.8.3p2).

    "too large" could mean either +/-large value (in which case "too small" means +/-near zero) or just +large value (in which case "too small" means -large value).

    7.12.6.3p2: expm1(-DBL_MAX) is -1, which is not a range error.

    7.12.8.2p2: erfc(-DBL_MAX) is 2, which is not a range error.

    7.12.8.3p2: lgamma(-DBL_MAX) is a pole error, which is not a range error.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add the word "positive" before x in those three cases so that they are:

    A range error occurs if positive x is too large.

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The Suggested Technical Corrigendum was accepted.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agreed to change “only occurs if” to “occurs if and only if” in three places, and these changes have been made in The Proposed Technical Corrigendum below.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change 7.12.1p2 first sentence from:

    For all functions, a domain error occurs if . . .

    to:

    For all functions, a domain error occurs if and only if . . .

    Change 7.12.1p3 first sentence from:

    Similarly, a pole error (also known as a singularity or infantry) occurs if . . .

    to:

    Similarly, a pole error (also known as a singularity or infantry) occurs if and only if . . .

    Change 7.12.1p4 from:

    Likewise, a range error occurs if the mathematical result of the function cannot be represented in an object of the specified type, due to extreme magnitude.

    to:

    Likewise, a range error occurs if and only if the mathematical result of the function cannot be represented in an object of the specified type, due to extreme magnitude. The description of each function lists any required range errors; an implementation may define additional range errors, provided that such errors are consistent with the mathematical definition of the function and are the result of either overflow or underflow.

    In 7.12.6.3 The exp2 function p2 change

    A range error occurs if x is too large.237

    to

    A range error occurs if positive x is too large.237

    In 7.12.8.2 The erf function p2 change

    A range error occurs if x is too large.

    to

    A range error occurs if positive x is too large.

    In 7.12.8.3 The erfc function p2 change

    A range error occurs if x is too large.

    to

    A range error occurs if positive x is too large.

    DR 469 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 476, or summary at top



    DR 474

    DR 472 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 400, or summary at top


    Submitter: Blaine Garst
    Submission Date: 2014-11-11
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1909
    Subject: NOTE 1 Clarification for atomic_compare_exchange

    Summary

    In 7.17.7.4 The atomic_compare_exchange generic functions paragraph 3 states

    NOTE 1 For example, the effect of atomic_compare_exchange_strong is

    
        if (memcmp(object, expected, sizeof (*object) == 0)
             memcpy(object, &desired, sizeof (*object));
        else
            memcpy(expected, object, sizeof (*object));
    

    The goal for this note was to show that either object or expected was updated rather than just being a conditional operation on object alone. It is being read by some parties, however, to mean that atomic_compare_and_exchange is intended to do bit comparison instead of value comparison. This is an erroneous reading.

    Consider first non-lock-free atomic types. These obviously require use of the lock, whether inline or in an external table. So the first conclusion is that an implementation must already select different implementations for these generic functions based on whether the type is lock-free or not (ignoring lock bits leads to data races). The basic algorithm is to take the lock on the target object, extract and compare values with expected, and store or update desired as appropriate, and release the lock. The extraction and comparison would likely be done by the compiler through the use of type specific intrinsics that may or may not get inlined by the optimizer.

    Consider second the cases of padded integer types, padded struct or union types, and float types.. All of these types have multiple bit representations for one or more values and will fail erroneously when object and expected differ in representation but not value. An implementation should, as for non-lock-free data types, select an appropriate intrinsic to perform this operation. There are two basic choices for the intrinsic. First, make all these atomic types locking, and use the locking strategy already in place to attain the lock and extract and compare the value bits appropriately. An alternate strategy might be to first "normalize" *object and *expected, and then perform bitwise compare and exchange.

    To support this conclusion, I propose clarifying the note to apply to unpadded lock-free integer types.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.17.7.4 The atomic_compare_exchange generic functions paragraph 3 replace
    NOTE 1 For example, the effect of atomic_compare_exchange_strong is ...
    with
    NOTE 1 For example, the effect of atomic_compare_exchange_strong is, for unpadded lock-free integer types, atomically ...

    Apr 2015 meeting

    Proposed Committee Response

    This change, especially in light of DR431, was thought to likely add confusion rather than clarify matters, and no change is desired.

    DR 472 Prev <— Closed —> Next DR 400, or summary at top



    DR 475

    DR 465 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 477, or summary at top


    Submitter: Blaine Garst
    Submission Date: 2015-04-15
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1927
    Subject: Misleading Atomic library references to atomic types

    Summary

    The 7.17 atomic library section of the standard and the syntax for atomic types arose from different authors. The library section was adopted first and then amended when the syntax proposal was approved during the development of the C11 Standard. The syntax is constructive and applies, with a few exceptions, to all types, including floats and bitfields.

    There are a few unfortunate phrasings remaining in the 7.17 Atomics <stdatomic.h> section, however, that have caused a small degree of confusion and are worth fixing.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.17.1 Introduction p3 Replace
    and several atomic analogs of integer types.
    with
    and atomic types declared with the _Atomic or _Atomic() construct.

    In 7.17.1 Introduction p5 Replace
    - An A refers to one of the atomic types.
    with
    - An A refers to an atomic type.

    In 7.17.6 Atomic Integer Types paragraph 2 replace
    The semantics of the operations on these types are defined in 7.17.7
    with
    The semantics of the operations on atomic types are defined in 7.17.7


    Apr 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The first suggested change is incorrect since it is deliberately speaking of the types declared in <std atomic.h>.

    After discussion, the direction is

    In 7.17.1 Introduction p5 replace

    - An A refers to one of the atomic types.
    with
    - An A refers to an atomic type.

    Delete 7.17.6 paragraph 2.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee accepts the proposed direction as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In 7.17.1p5 replace

    - An A refers to one of the atomic types.
    with
    - An A refers to an atomic type.

    Delete 7.17.6 paragraph 2.

    DR 465 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 477, or summary at top



    DR 476

    DR 473 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 479, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2015-08-26
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1956
    Subject: volatile semantics for lvalues

    Summary

    The following sections discuss the C semantics of the volatile keyword and show that they neither support existing practice nor, we believe, reflect the intent of the committee when they were crafted. The Suggested Technical Corrigendum then details changes to the C specification required to bring it into harmony with both, as well as with C++.

    Motivation For Volatile

    The use case that motivated the introduction of the volatile keyword into C was a variant of the following snippet copied from early UNIX sources [1]:

        #define KL 0177560
    
        struct { char lobyte, hibyte; };
        struct { int ks, kb, ps, pb; };
    
        getchar() {
            register rc;
            ...
            while (KL->ks.lobyte >= 0);
            rc = KL->kb & 0177;
            ...
            return rc;
        }

    The desired effect of the while loop in the getchar() function is to iterate until the most significant (sign) bit of the keyboard status register mapped to an address in memory represented by the KL macro (the address of the memory-mapped KBD_STAT I/O register on the PDP-11) has become non-zero, indicating that a key has been pressed, and then return the character value extracted from the low 7 bits corresponding to the pressed key. In order for the function to behave as expected, the compiler must emit an instruction to read a value from the I/O register on each iteration of the loop. In particular, the compiler must avoid caching the read value in a CPU register and substituting it in subsequent accesses.

    On the other hand, in situations where the memory location doesn't correspond to a special memory-mapped register, it's more efficient to avoid reading the value from memory if it happens to already have been read into a CPU register, and instead use the value cached in the CPU register.

    The problem is that without some sort of notation (in K&R C there was none) there would be no way for a compiler to distinguish between these two cases. The following paragraph quoted from The C Programming Language, Second Edition, by Kernighan and Ritchie, explains the solution that was introduced into standard C to deal with this problem: the volatile keyword.

    The purpose of volatile is to force an implementation to suppress optimization that could otherwise occur. For example, for a machine with memory-mapped input/output, a pointer to a device register might be declared as a pointer to volatile, in order to prevent the compiler from removing apparently redundant references through the pointer.

    Using the volatile keyword, it should then be possible to rewrite the loop in the snippet above as follows:

        while (*(volatile int*)&KL->ks.lobyte >= 0);
    or equivalently:
        volatile int *lobyte = &KL->ks.lobyte;
        while (*lobyte >= 0);
    and prevent the compiler from caching the value of the keyboard status register, thus guaranteeing that the register will be read once in each iteration.

    The difference between the two forms of the rewritten loop is of historical interest: Early C compilers are said to have recognized the first pattern (without the volatile keyword) where the address used to access the register was a constant, and avoided the undesirable optimization for such accesses [11]. However, they did not have the same ability when the access was through pointer variable in which the address had been stored, especially not when the use of such a variable was far removed from the last assignment to it. The volatile keyword was intended to allow both forms of the loop to work as expected.

    The use case exemplified by the loop above has since become idiomatic and is being extensively relied on in today's software even beyond reading I/O registers.

    As a representative example, consider the Linux kernel which relies on volatile in its implementation of synchronization primitives such as spin locks, or for performance counters. The variables that are operated on by these primitives are typically declared to be of unqualified (i.e., non-volatile) scalar types and allocated in ordinary memory. In serial code, for maximum efficiency, each such variable is read and written just like any other variable, with its value cached in a CPU register as compiler optimizations permit. At well-defined points in the code where such a variable may be accessed by more than one CPU at a time, the caching must be prevented and the variable must be accessed using the special volatile semantics. To achieve that, the kernel defines two macros: READ_ONCE, and WRITE_ONCE, in whose terms the primitives are implemented. Each of the macros prevents the compiler optimization by casting the address of its argument to a volatile T* and accessing the variable via an lvalue of the volatile-qualified type T (where T is one of the standard scalar types). Other primitives gurantee memory synchronization and visibility but those are orthogonal to the subject of this paper. See [3].

    Similar examples can be found in other system or embedded programs as well as in many other pre-C11 and pre-C++11 code bases that don't rely on the Atomic types and operations newly inroduced in those standards. They are often cited in programming books [4] and in online articles [5, 6, 7, 8].

    The Trouble With Volatile

    In light of the motivation for the keyword and the wide-spread practice of relying on its expected effect it might then come as a surprise that the C standard lacks the necessary guarantees to support this popular idiom. In the text of the C standard, volatile semantics are specified to apply to objects explicitly declared with the qualifier. Quoting from §5.1.2.3, Program execution, p2:

    Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object, ... are all side effects, which are changes in the state of the execution environment.

    and p6:

    Accesses to volatile objects are evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine.

    Note in particular that the text refers to volatile objects, which are defined as regions of storage storing the representation of their values. Objects are distinct from expressions used to designate and access them. Such expressions are referred to as lvalues, and may but don't need to mention the name of the accessed object. However, since the words in the paragraphs above don't mention lvalues the special volatile semantics don't apply to such accessess. As a result, since the expression *(volatile int*)&KL->ks.lobyte is not an object but an lvalue of type volatile int that designates an object of an otherwise unknown/unspecified type (the KL pointer doesn't point at an object in the C sense), the volatile semantics do not apply to it. Consequently, and due to §6.8.5, Iteration statements, p6

    An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that ... does not access volatile objects ... may be assumed ... to terminate.

    the controlling expression of the while loop is not required to be evaluated with the special volatile semantics, allowing a C compiler to read the value of the keyboard status register just once, and to return its value from the function even if it's zero. (No known compiler has been observed to take advantage of this permission.) This would obviously cause the getchar function to behave in an unexpected way.

    Although the problem with the C specification of volatile isn't well known, it isn't new. It was pointed out in the past, for example in The trouble with volatile [9], Jonathan Corbet quotes Linus Torvalds, the author and maintainer of the Linux kernel, as saying:

    Also, more importantly, "volatile" is on the wrong part of the whole system. In C, it's "data" that is volatile, but that is insane. Data isn't volatile — accesses are volatile. So it may make sense to say "make this particular access be careful", but not "make all accesses to this data use some random strategy".

    Volatile In C++

    This problem is unique to the C standard. Unlike C, the text in the C++ standard avoids referring to volatile objects and instead refers to volatile glvalues. (A glvalue is a C++ generalization of the C concept of lvalue.) The C++ text that corresponds to the quote from §5.1.2.3 Program execution, p2 of C11 above, in §1.9 Program execution, p12, reads:

    Accessing an object designated by a volatile glvalue, modifying an object, ... are all side effects, which are changes in the state of the execution environment.

    It might be tempting to chalk up this differenc to a deliberate or accidental diveregence of the C++ guarantees from C. But the C++ standard contains an informative note in §7.1.6.1, The cv-qualifiers, p7, making it clear that:

    In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in C++ as they are in C.
    This note which appears in the latest revision of C++ from 2014 dates back to the first revision of the standard from 1998.

    Intended Semantics

    Besides the evidence above that the words in the C standard do not reflect existing practice, there is also indication beyond the informative note in the C++ standard that the words most likely do not reflect the original intent of the committee at the time they were crafted.

    The C99 Rationale [10], in §6.7.3 makes it clear that the committee's intent when introducing volatile was to specify semantics that apply to accesses to non-volatile objects via volatile-qualified lvalues and not just to accesses to objects explicitly declared with the qualifier:

    The C89 Committee added to C two type qualifiers, const and volatile; .... Individually and in combination they specify the assumptions a compiler can and must make when accessing an object through an lvalue.

    .... volatile and restrict are inventions of the Committee; and both follow the syntactic model of const.

    (Note: The syntactic model of const is to apply constness to accesses through lvalues, regardless of whether or not the object being accessed has been declared with a const-qualified type.)

    The same section then further clarifies that:

    If it is necessary to access a non-volatile object using volatile semantics, the technique is to cast the address of the object to the appropriate pointer-to-qualified type, then dereference that pointer.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The suggested technical corrigendum that follows brings the volatile specification into alignment with existing practice, with their original intent, and also with the C++ specification.

    In §5.1.2.3, Program execution, p2:

    Accessing an object through the use of an lvalue of volatile-qualified typevolatile object, modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of those operations are all side effects...
    In §5.1.2.3, Program execution, p4:
    An actual implementation need not evaluate part of an expression if it can deduce that its value is not used and that no needed side effects are produced (including any caused by calling a function or accessing an object through the use of an lvalue of volatile-qualified typevolatile object).
    In §5.1.2.3, Program execution, p6, bullet 1:
    Accesses to objects through the use of lvalues of volatile-qualified typesvolatile objects are evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine.
    In §6.7.3, Type qualifiers, p7:
    What constitutes an access to an object through the use of an lvalue ofthat has volatile-qualified type is implementation-defined.
    In §6.8.5, Iteration statements, p6:
    An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression,156) that performs no input/output operations, does not access objects through the use of lvalues of volatile-qualified types volatile objects, ... may be assumed by the implementation to terminate.
    In §J.3.10, Qualifiers, p1:
    What constitutes an access to an object through the use of an lvalue ofthat has volatile-qualified type (6.7.3).
    In §L.2.1, p1:
    out-of-bounds store

    an (attempted) access (3.1) that, at run time, for a given computational state, would modify (or, for an object declaredlvalue of volatile-qualified type, fetch) one or more bytes that lie outside the bounds permitted by this Standard.

    References

    1. /usr/src/stand/pdp11/iload/console.c, AT&T UNIX System III, 1982
    2. The C Programming Language, Second Edition, Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie
    3. ISO/IEC SC22/WG21 document N4444: Linux-Kernel Memory Model, Paul E. McKenney
    4. §8.4. Const and volatile, The C Book, Second Edition, Mike Banahan and Declan Brady, GBdirect
    5. Introduction to the volatile keyword an embedded.com article by Nigel Jones, July 2, 2001
    6. Why does volatile exist?, a stackoverflow.com article, September 16, 2008
    7. Why is volatile needed in c?, a stackoverflow.com article, October 29, 2008
    8. volatile (computer programming), a Wikipedia article
    9. The trouble with volatile, an LWN article, Jonathan Corbet, May 9 2007
    10. Rationale for International Standard — Programming Languages — C, Revision 5.10, April 2003
    11. A question on volatile accesses — A response to comp.std.c question by Doug Gwyn, November 1990

    Oct 2015 meeting


    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Further correspondence with the author led to a small paper containing a revised Suggested Technical Corrigendum incorporating the suggestion from the last meeting. The following proposed changes were considered appropriate.

    Change §5.1.2.3p2 from:

    Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object, modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of those operations are all side effects ...
    to:
    An access to an object through the use of an lvalue of volatile-qualified type is a volatile access. A volatile access to an object, modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of those operations are all side effects ...

    Change §5.1.2.3p4 from:

    An actual implementation need not evaluate part of an expression if it can deduce that its value is not used and that no needed side effects are produced (including any caused by calling a function or accessing a volatile object.
    to:
    An actual implementation need not evaluate part of an expression if it can deduce that its value is not used and that no needed side effects are produced (including any caused by calling a function or through volatile access to an object.

    Change §5.1.2.3p6 bullet 1 from:

    Accesses to volatile objects are evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine.
    may be assumed by the implementation to terminate.to:
    Volatile access to objects are evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine.

    There was a suggestion that volatile access be reconciled with the definition of lvalue in §6.3.2.1 and that further wording is solicited.

    DR 473 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 479, or summary at top



    DR 477

    DR 475 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 478, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2015-08-27
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1957
    Subject: nan should take a string argument

    Summary

    The Description for the nan(const char *tagp) function reads as follows:

    The call nan("n-char-sequence") is equivalent to strtod("NAN(n-char-sequence)", (char**) NULL); the call nan("") is equivalent to strtod("NAN()", (char**) NULL). If tagp does not point to an n-char sequence or an empty string, the call is equivalent to strtod("NAN", (char**) NULL).

    An n-char sequence is a string of an implementation-defined form.

    §7.1.4, Use of library functions, requires that arguments to library functions must have valid values. Specifically, pointers must not be null or point outside the address space of the program. In addition, arguments described as arrays (including strings) must be such that all address computations and accesses to objects that would be valid if the pointer argument did point to the first element of such an array are in fact valid.

    Since tagp argument is not required to point to a string or array, only the first condition in §7.1.4 applies: it must not point outside the address space of the program or be null.

    Therefore, in the snippet below, since tagp is a valid pointer that does not point to an n-char-sequence or the empty string, the nan call is valid and required to be be equivalent to strtod("NAN", (char**) NULL).

        char c = '1';   // not a n-char-sequence (no terminating NUL)
        char *tagp = &c;
        double x = nan (tagp);

    But for an implementation that recognizes n-char-sequences of length greater than 1 the requirement to determine whether tagp points to one is impossible to implement since to do so nan would have to attempt to read past the end of c.

    It seems obvious that this is not intended and that the standard text is simply missing a requirement that the tagp argument point to a string.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The solution is to require the argument to the nan family of functions to be a pointer to a string, analogously to all other library functions that operate on strings.

    Change §7.12.11.2 as follows:

    The nan, nanf, and nanl functions convert the string pointed to by tagp according to the following rules. The call nan("n-char-sequence") is equivalent to strtod("NAN(n-char-sequence)", (char**) NULL); the call nan("") is equivalent to strtod("NAN()", (char**) NULL). If tagp does not point to an n-char sequence or an empty string, the call is equivalent to strtod("NAN", (char**) NULL).


    Oct 2015 meeting


    Committee Discussion


    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    To §7.12.11.2 insert as first sentence:

    The nan, nanf, and nanl functions convert the string pointed to by tagp according to the following rules. The call nan("n-char-sequence") is equivalent ...

    DR 475 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 478, or summary at top



    DR 478

    DR 477 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 483, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2015-09-10
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1960
    Subject: valid uses of the main function

    Summary

    The text of the standard isn't entirely clear as to whether or not the function main can be used by strictly conforming C programs in hosted environments. The following passages quote the permissions and requirements that at the same time suggest that main may not be used by such programs, and that there may be more than the one call to the function made by the implementation at program startup.

    §5.1.2.2.2 Program execution says:

    In a hosted environment, a program may use all the functions, macros, type definitions, and objects described in the library clause (clause 7).
    suggesting that, since main is not described in the library clause but rather in §5.1.2.2.1, it may not be used by a program.

    However, §5.1.2.2.3 Program termination, immediately following the section quoted above, then goes on to state (emphasis added):

    If the return type of the main function is a type compatible with int, a return from the initial call to the main function is equivalent to calling the exit function with the value returned by the main function as its argument; ...
    In addition, §7.21.3 Files contains the following sentence (emphasis also added):
    If the main function returns to its original caller, all open files are closed...
    Finally, since the C++ standard explicitly prohibits programs from calling or otherwise using main, one might expect C to do the same. However the references to main's initial call and its original caller in the latter two paragraphs suggest otherwise.

    The question was raised and discussed on the committee's mailing list starting with message (SC22WG14.13780) valid uses of main. In response, members of the committee who participated in the preparation of the version of the C standard that introduced the words clarified that the intent was and remains for C to allow programs to use main. In particular, the intent of §5.1.2.2.2 Program execution is to grant permission to programs to use the facilities of the standard library but not to preclude the uses of main or other symbols defined by them.

    However, since the function main is special and unlike any other symbol defined by a program, and since C++ contains a rule to the contrary, we feel that the intent isn't sufficiently clearly and unambiguously reflected in the quoted passages or the rest of the standard, and that a clarification is called for.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    In light of the intent of the passages quoted above as made clear by the mailing list discussion, we offer two proposals to clarify the text of the standard.

    Proposal 1

    Change §5.1.2.2.2 Program execution as follows:

    In a hosted environment, a program may use the function main as well as all the functions, macros, type definitions, and objects described in the library clause (clause 7).

    Proposal 2

    Add a footnote to the end of §5.1.2.2.2 Program execution, with the following text:

    A program may also use the function main.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee does not agree that any further clarification is needed in the standard. We know of no actual confusion in a practical sense on this matter. As such, the committee agrees with and draws substantially from (SC22WG14.13787) RE: RE: RE: valid uses of main in the formulation of its Proposed Committee Response below.

    Proposed Committee Response

    As there is no "only" in 5.1.2.2.2 the interpretation should be that the statement is granting permission, not making a restriction. It is drawing a distinction between freestanding environments, where only a subset of the library can be used, and hosted environments, where all of the library can be used. Programs are always free, in either kind of environment, to use things in addition to the library, like their own functions and objects. Additionally, the reference in 5.1.2.2.3 to the initial call to main strongly suggests that recursive calls are allowed.

    DR 477 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 483, or summary at top



    DR 479

    DR 476 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 480, or summary at top


    Submitter: Torvald Riegel, Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2015-09-25
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1963
    Subject: unclear specification of mtx_trylock on non-recursive muteness

    Summary

    The specification of mtx_trylock if applied to a non-recursive mutex is not clear. Whereas it is spelled out for mtx_lock that a thread must not attempt to lock a non-recursive mutex more than once, there is no such requirement for mtx_trylock. The existing wording for mtx_trylock could be understood as requiring mtx_trylock to fail; however, that would defeat the purpose of separating recursive from non-recursive mutexes because it would require implementations to track which thread owns the mutex.

    (It might also be good if the standard would define what recursive locking actually is, but this is outside of the focus of this paper.)

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The standard should specify the requirement for mtx_lock explicitly for mtx_trylock as well. Specifically, add the following sentence to 7.26.4.5p2:

    If the mutex is non-recursive, it shall not be locked by the calling thread.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    This resolution continues to be bound to DR 469

    DR 476 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 480, or summary at top



    DR 480

    DR 479 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 481, or summary at top


    Submitter: Torvald Riegel, Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2015-09-25
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1964
    Subject: cnd_wait and cnd_timewait should allow spurious wake-ups

    Summary

    Both ISO C++ and POSIX allow for spurious wake-ups from their condition variable wait functions. However, C11 has no wording that would allow that. (This applies to both cnd_wait and cnd_timewait, but just cnd_wait is referred to in what follows.)

    If spurious wake-ups are allowed, then some implementations become significantly easier; it also allows to implement the C standard on top of POSIX using just a thin wrapper. In contrast, implementing a condition variable that does not allow spurious wake-ups on top of a condition variable implementation that does allow that is likely close to implementing a condition variable from scratch in terms of complexity.

    Another reason for allowing spurious wake-ups is that to actually exploit having no spurious wake-ups, a program needs to take quite some care to establish the happens-before relations required to make just the return from cnd_wait mean something that can be used to infer something about the then current state of memory (for example, if the wake-up is supposed to also mean that some state has been initialized).

    Specifically, the program must make sure that it actually calls cnd_signal (or cnd_broadcast) after cnd_wait has started to block; this can be ensured by calling cnd_signal from a critical section protected by the same mutex as supplied to the respective cnd_wait, and checking the ordering of the cnd_wait and cnd_signal critical sections in some way (e.g., through access to variables protected by the same mutex, or by not letting the signaling thread enter the cnd_signal critical section before the cnd_wait critical section). Second, cnd_wait is not specified to synchronize with cnd_signal, so either cnd_signal must be in such a critical section (ie, there is a second reason for that), or the signaler and the waiter must establish a happens-before relation through other means such as atomics.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Change this sentence from the specification of cnd_wait (7.26.3.6p2):

    The cnd_wait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and endeavors to block until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast.

    to this:

    The cnd_wait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and endeavors to block until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast, or until it is unblocked due to a spurious, unspecified reason.

    Likewise for cnd_timedwait.


    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees with the authors’ interpretation and accepts their Suggested Technical Corrigendum with one minor edit. The word “spurious” is felt to be implied by the use of the verb “endeavors” and is struck.

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee decided to change “endeavors to block” to “blocks”, and that change is made in the Proposed Technical Corrigendum below.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In §7.26.3.5p2 change

    The cnd_timedwait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and endeavors to block until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast, or until after the TIME_UTC-based calendar time pointed to by ts.
    to
    The cnd_timedwait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and blocks until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast, or until after the TIME_UTC-based calendar time pointed to by ts, or until it is unblocked due to an unspecified reason.

    In §7.26.3.6p2 change

    The cnd_wait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and endeavors to block until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast.
    to:
    The cnd_wait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by mtx and blocks until the condition variable pointed to by cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast, or until it is unblocked due to an unspecified reason.

    DR 479 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 481, or summary at top



    DR 481

    DR 480 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 482, or summary at top


    Submitter: Jens Gustedt
    Submission Date: 2015-04-24
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1930
    Subject: Controlling expression of _Generic primary expression

    Summary

    This is a follow up of the now closed DR 423 which resulted in the clarification of the status of qualifications of rvalues.

    This defect report aims to clarify the status of the controlling expression of _Generic primary expression:

    Does the controlling expression of a _Generic primary expression undergo any type of conversion to calculate the type that is used to do the selection?

    Implementers have given different answers to this question; gcc (choice 1 in the following) on one side and clang and IBM (choice 2) on the other side went quite opposite ways, resulting in severe incompatibility for _Generic expression that use qualifiers or arrays.

    char const* a = _Generic("bla", char*: "blu");                 // clang error
    char const* b = _Generic("bla", char[4]: "blu");               // gcc error
    char const* c = _Generic((int const){ 0 }, int: "blu");        // clang error
    char const* d = _Generic((int const){ 0 }, int const: "blu");  // gcc error
    char const* e = _Generic(+(int const){ 0 }, int: "blu");       // both ok
    char const* f = _Generic(+(int const){ 0 }, int const: "blu"); // both error
    

    The last two lines, where gcc and clang agree, points to the nature of the problem: gcc treats all such expressions as rvalues and does all applicable conversions of 6.3.2.1, that is lvalue to rvalue and array to pointer conversions. clang treats them as lvalues.

    Problem discussion

    The problem arises to know whether or not the conversions of 6.3 apply to the controlling expression.

    Integer promotions

    Applying promotions would have as an effect that we wouldn't be able to distinguish narrow integer types from int. There is no indication that the text implies that form or conversion, nor that anybody has proposed to use _Generic like this.

    Choice 1: Consequences of lvalue conversion

    All conversion in 6.3.2.1 p2 describe what would in normal CS language be named the evaluation of an object. It has no provision to apply it to types alone. In particular it includes the special clause that uninitialized register variables lead to undefined behavior when undergoing lvalue conversion. As a consequence:

    Any lvalue conversion of an uninitialized register variable leads to undefined behavior.

    And thus

    Under the hypothesis that the controlling expression undergoes lvalue conversion, any _Generic primary expression that uses an uninitialized register variable as controlling expression leads to undefined behavior.

    Choice 2: Consequences not doing conversions

    In view of the resolution of DR 423 (rvalues drop qualifiers) using _Generic primary expressions with objects in controlling expression may have results that appear surprising.

    #define F(X) _Generic((X), char const: 0, char: 1, int: 2)
    char const strc[] = "";
    F(strc[0])   // -> 0
    F(""[0])     // -> 1
    F(+strc[0])  // -> 2
    

    So the problem is here, that there is no type agnostic operator that results in a simple lvalue conversion for char const objects to char; all such operators also promote char to int.

    Under the hypothesis that the controlling expression doesn't undergo conversion, any _Generic primary expression that uses a qualified lvalue of narrow type T can't directly trigger the association for T itself.

    non-equivalence of the two approaches

    For many areas the two approaches are feature equivalent, that is both allow to implement the same semantic concepts, but with different syntax. Rewriting code that was written with one of choices in mind to the other choice is in general not straight forward and probably can't be automated.

    Application work around

    Since today C implementations have already taken different paths for this feature, applications should be careful when using _Generic to remain in the intersection of these two interpretations. A certain number of design questions should be answered when implementing a type generic macro:

    The following lists different strategies for common scenarios, that can be used to code type generic macros that will work with both of the choices 1 or 2.

    Wide integers and floating point types

    This is e.g the case of the C library interfaces in <tgmath.h>. If we know that the possible type of the argument is restricted in such a way, the easiest is to apply the unary plus operator +, as in

      #define F(X) _Generic(+(X),             \
        default: doubleFunc,                  \
        int: intFunc,                         \
        ...                                   \
        _Complex long double: cldoubleFunc)(X)
    
      #define fabs(X) _Generic(+(X),          \
        default: fabs,                        \
        float: fabsf,                         \
        long double: fabsl)(X)
    

    This + sign ensures an lvalue to rvalue conversion, and, that it will error out at compilation time for pointer types or arrays. It also forcibly promotes narrow integer types, usually to int. For the later case of fabs all integer types will map to the double version of the function, and the argument will eventually be converted to double before the call is made.

    Adding pointer types and converting arrays

    If we also want to capture pointer types and convert arrays to pointers, we should use +0.

      #define F(X) _Generic((X)+0),           \
        default: doubleFunc,                  \
        char*: stringFunc,                    \
        char const*: stringFunc,              \
        int: intFunc,                         \
        ...                                   \
        _Complex long double: cldoubleFunc)(X)
    

    This binary + ensures that any array is first converted to a pointer; the properties of 0 ensure that this constant works well with all the types that are to be captured, here. It also forcibly promotes narrow integer types, usually to int.

    Converting arrays, only

    If we k now that a macro will only be used for array and pointer types, we can use the [] operator:

      #define F(X) _Generic(&((X)[0]),        \
        char*: stringFunc,                    \
        char const*: stringFunc,              \
        wchar_t*: wcsFunc,                    \
        ...                                   \
        )(X)
    

    This operator only applies to array or to pointer types and would error if present with any integer type.

    Using qualifiers of types or arrays

    If we want a macro that selects differently according to type qualification or according to different array size, we can use the & operator:

      #define F(X) _Generic(&(X),        \
        char**: stringFunc,              \
        char(*)[4]: string4Func,         \
        char const**: stringFunc,        \
        char const(*)[4]: string4Func,   \
        wchar_t**: wcsFunc,              \
        ...                              \
        )(X)
    

    Possible solutions

    The above discussion describes what can be read from the text of C11, alone, and not the intent of the committee. I think if the committee would have wanted a choice 2, the standard text would not have looked much different than what we have, now. Since also the intent of the committee to go for choice 1 seems not to be very clear from any additional text (minutes of the meetings, e.g) I think the reading of choice 2 should be the preferred one.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum (any choice)

    Amend the list in footnote 121 for objects with register storage class. Change

    Thus, the only operators that can be applied to an array declared with storage-class specifier register are sizeof and _Alignof.

    Thus, an identifier with array type and declared with storage-class specifier register may only appear in primary expressions and as operand to sizeof and _Alignof.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum (Choice 2)
    Change 6.5.1.1 p3, first sentence

    The controlling expression of a generic selection is not evaluated and the type of that expression is used without applying any conversions described in Section 6.3.

    Add _Generic to the exception list in 6.3.2.1 p3 to make it clear that array to pointer conversion applies to none of the controlling or association expression if they are lvalues of array type.

    Except when it is the controlling expression or an association expression of a _Generic primary expression, or is the operand of the sizeof operator, the _Alignof operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type “array of type” is converted to an expression with type “pointer to type” that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue. If the array object has register storage class, the behavior is undefined.

    Also add a forward reference to _Generic in 6.3.2.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum (Choice 1)
    If the intent of the committee had been choice 1 or similar, bigger changes of the standard would be indicated. I only list some of the areas that would need changes:

    Also, add _Generic to the exception list in 6.3.2.1 p3 to make it clear that array to pointer conversion applies to none of the association expression if they are lvalues of array type.

    Except when it is an association expression of a _Generic expression, or is the operand of the sizeof operator, the _Alignof operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type “array of type” is converted to an expression with type “pointer to type” that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue. If the array object has register storage class, the behavior is undefined.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum (Status quo)
    A third possibility would be to leave this leeway to implementations. I strongly object to that, but if so, I would suggest to add a phrase to 6.5.1.1 p3 like:

    ... in the default generic association. Whether or not the type of the controlling expression is determined as if any of conversions described in Section 6.3 are applied is implementation defined. None of the expressions ...


    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The paper N2001 was presented and, with revision, adopted as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum below.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    In §6.5.1p2 change:

    The controlling expression of a generic selection shall have type compatible with at most one of the types named in its generic association list.
    to
    The type of the controlling expression is the type of the expression as if it had undergone an lvalue conversionnew, array to pointer conversion, or function to pointer conversion. That type shall be compatible with at most one of the types named in the generic association list.

    new)lvalue conversion drops type qualifiers.

    DR 480 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 482, or summary at top



    DR 482

    DR 481 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 485, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-06-23
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1942
    Subject: Macro invocation split over many files

    Summary

    Based upon my reading of the standard, it appears that the following is strictly conforming code. However, many compilers refuse to translate it (which I think is good).

    main.c:

    
    #include <string.h>  /* strcpy(), strcmp() */
    #undef NDEBUG
    #include <assert.h>  /* assert() */
    
    int main(void) {
      int line1;
      int line2;
      char file1[1023];
      char file2[1023];
    
      #include "file1.h"    /* start of call of assert() split over many files */
      );                    /* end of assert() */
    
      assert( 2 == line1 );
      assert( 3 == line2 );
      assert( 0 != strcmp( file1, file2 ) );
    
      return 0;
    } /* end main() */
    
    
    

    file2.h:

    
    assert(
           ( (void)strcpy(file1,__FILE__), line1 = __LINE__ )
    
    

    file1.h:

    
    #include "file2.h"
    !=
      ( (void)strcpy(file2,__FILE__), line2 = __LINE__ )
    
    

    There already are some ways to have a macro invocation be split over two files that result in undefined behaviour.

    5.1.1.2 Translation phases, paragraph 1, bullet 2 has:

    A source file that is not empty shall end in a new-line character, which shall not be immediately preceded by a backslash character before any such splicing takes place.

    which makes using line splicing (as a way to split a macro invocation over many files) undefined.

    6.10.3 Macro replacement, paragraph 11 has:

    If there are sequences of preprocessing tokens within the list of arguments that would otherwise act as preprocessing directives,172) the behavior is undefined.

    which makes using #include of arguments (as a way to split a macro invocation over many files) between the outside-most matching parentheses undefined.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add to 5.1.1.2, paragraph 1, bullet 3, words along the lines of:

    A macro invocation shall be contained within one source file.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee was unsympathetic to the Suggested Technical Corrigendum. It was noted that function invocations are allowed to span files and that there are some implementations that do support macro invocations that the Suggested Technical Corrigendum would invalidate.

    The committee agrees that such uses should probably have been prohibited in the original specification and may consider adding such restrictions in a possible future revision of the Standard, and will record this intent in the next revision of WG 14 Standing Document 3 currently at N1972 .

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The Proposed Committee Response was augmented.

    Proposed Committee Response

    The committee agrees that such uses should probably have been prohibited in the original specification and may consider adding such restrictions in a possible future revision of the Standard, and will record this intent in the next revision of WG 14 Standing Document 3 currently at N1972 .

    Although the committee agrees that such invocations are not necessarily best practice, they are supported in existing implementations and as such the committee sees no benefit to accepting changes that would invalidate this practice.

    DR 481 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 485, or summary at top



    DR 483

    DR 478 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 484, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-06-23
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1943
    Subject: __LINE__ and __FILE__ in macro replacement list

    Summary

    Based upon my reading of the standard, it appears that the following are ambiguous, so are a possible defect.

    An example of that.

    
      #line 500
      #define MAC() __LINE__
    
      #line 1000
     int j = MAC();         /* is this 500 or 1000? */
    
    

    However, 7.2.1.1 requires that the assert macro write information about the call that has a false expression. That information includes the __LINE__ and __FILE__ preprocessing macros. So, there is a requirement that this specific macro using __LINE__ and __FILE__ have the line number and file name of the invocation, not the line number and file name of the replacment list (in <assert.h>).

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add to 6.10.8.1, paragraph 1, item __LINE__:

    The line number associated with a __LINE__ in a macro replacment list is the line number of the macro invocation.

    Add to 6.10.8.1, paragraph 1, item __FILE__:

    The source file name associated with a __FILE__ in a macro replacment list is the source file name of the macro invocation.

    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee notes that these issues are also raised in the WG21 C++ committee document N4220. However, the committee also notes that among all implementations “nobody gets this wrong” and as such there is no actual confusion, and although there is sentiment that the standard might not perfectly express its intent, it is clear enough to warrant no change.

    Proposed Committee Response

    The committee believes that since there is no evidence of confusion over the intent of the standard in this area by any implementor that there is no defect worth correcting at this time.

    DR 478 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 484, or summary at top



    DR 484

    DR 483 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 486, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-06-23
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1944
    Subject: invalid characters in strcoll()

    Summary

    7.24.4.3 strcoll makes the assumption that the result of comparing two strings can only have one of three outcomes: greater than, equal to, or less than. However, there is a fourth outcome that is possible: not comparable.

    I have been told that there are locales or codesets that have strings of bytes that do not form valid characters. Those invalid characters could be considered Not-a-Character (similar to Not-a-Number for floating-point). And, they are not comparable to anything.

    I do not know if the same issue can apply to wchar_t. If so, then 7.29.4.4.1 wcscmp(), 7.29.4.4.3 wcsncmp(), and 7.29.4.4.5 wmemcmp() have the same problem.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Replace the start of 7.24.4.3, paragraph 3,

    The strcoll ...

    with

    If either string contains invalid characters, errno is set to an implementation defined value and the return value is unspecified; otherwise, errno is left alone and the strcoll ...

    The same change should also be applied to 7.29.4.4.2 wcscoll.


    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee agrees that the standard does not specify behavior under these conditions and as such there is undefined behavior by way of §7.1.4p1 “If an argument to a function has an invalid value … the behavior is undefined”. There is strong sentiment to keep the library fast and that imposing new requirements to set errno is to be generally avoided. Whereas POSIX does define behavior that sets errno under these conditions, it is explicitly the intent of the committee to leave such behavior undefined in the standard to allow such refinements by others.

    Proposed Committee Response

    By way of §7.1.4p1 “If an argument to a function has an invalid value … the behavior is undefined” the behavior of strcoll in the face of invalid input is already clearly undefined. The committee wishes to leave it so specified. This latitude allows POSIX to further refine the semantics according to their needs. We therefore do not accept the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    DR 483 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 486, or summary at top



    DR 485

    DR 482 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 487, or summary at top


    Submitter: Jens Gustedt
    Submission Date: 2015-08-07
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1951
    Subject: Problem with the specification of ATOMIC_VAR_INIT

    Summary

    The current version of the standard states that the argument to this macro should be a value of the corresponding base type of the atomic object that is to be initialized.

    The ATOMIC_VAR_INIT macro expands to a token sequence suitable for initializing an atomic object of a type that is initialization-compatible with value.

    This is problematic, because it excludes the primary form of initializers, the { } form, from the possible uses, that would be necessary to initialize struct or union types properly.

    Problem discussion

    As a consequence, there is a problem for atomic objects that combine the two properties:

    1. The base type is a struct or union type.
    2. The object has static or thread-local storage duration.

    The problem is, that for such types there are no compile time constants that could be used as value, here. As a consequence the standard doesn't allow explicit initialization for these objects.

    1. Atomic objects of struct or union type and static or thread-local storage duration can only be default initialized.
    2. At program and thread startup, respectively, atomic objects of struct or union type and static or thread-local storage duration are in an indeterminate state.

    This is an important drawback that doesn't seem to be intentional:

    Current practice

    Both compilers that I have my hands on (gcc 4.9 and clang 3.6) that implement <stdatomic.h> have something equivalent to

    #define ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(VALUE)  (VALUE)
    

    This is of course conforming to the standard text as it is now, but exhibit the exact problem. They don't allow for a compile time initializer since the () around VALUE result in invalid syntax if VALUE is a { } initializer.

    Clang has an implementation specific way out of this: they allow compound literals with constant initializers in that context. Gcc provides no such solution.

    For both compilers, it is easily possible to overwrite the macro definition into one that omits the parenthesis and all works fine.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Change the beginning of the corresponding section, 7.17.2.1p2, to:

    7.17.2.1 The ATOMIC_VAR_INIT macro
    Synopsis
    #include <stdatomic.h>
    #define ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(initializer)
    Description
    The ATOMIC_VAR_INIT macro expands to a token sequence suitable for initializing an atomic object X. For any invocation of this macro, the initializer argument shall expand to a token sequence that would be suitable to initialize X if the atomic qualification would be dropped.footnoteThat is, it could be used to initialize an object Y of the same base type, storage duration and place of declaration as X, but without atomic qualification.end footnote
    An atomic object with automatic storage duration ...

    Then append a new note after the actual para 4:

    Note: Since initializer may be a token sequence that contains commas which are not protected by () it may constitute a variable number of arguments for the macro evaluation. Implementations should be able to deal with such situations by defining ATOMIC_VAR_INIT as accepting a variable argument list.


    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    A short paper was provided with a Suggested Technical Corrigendum and, although close, more work was solicited from the authors. The direction discussed by the committee was given that in the section C is defined to be the non-atomic equivalent of type A,
  • new wording must be provided to say it takes an initializer for an object of type C, and the macro expands to an object of type A, and that
  • the macro can be defined as in the Suggested Technical Corrigendum:
        #define ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(...)
    
  • DR 482 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 487, or summary at top



    DR 486

    DR 484 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 409, or summary at top


    Submitter: Jens Gustedt
    Submission Date: 2015-08-07
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1955
    Subject: Inconsistent specification for arithmetic on atomic objects

    Summary

    Whereas its intent is clear, the text in the C standard that concerns atomics has several consistency problems. There are contradictions and the standard vocabulary is not always applied correctly.

    Problem discussion

    — Memory order of operators —

    The following sections on arithmetic operators, all specify that if they are applied to an atomic object as an operand of any arithmetic base type, the memory order sematic is memory_order_seq_cst:

    No such mention is made for

    — Integer representations and erroneous operations —

    Concerning the generic library calls, they state in 7.17.7.5

    For signed integer types, arithmetic is defined to use two’s complement representation with silent wrap-around on overflow; there are no undefined results.

    and

    For address types, the result may be an undefined address, but the operations otherwise have no undefined behavior.

    Can the sign representation depend on the operation that we apply to an object?
    Are these operations supposed to be consistent between operator and function notation?
    What is an address type?
    What is "no undefined behavior"? How is the behavior then defined, when we are not told about it?

    — Operators versus generic functions —

    Then a Note (7.17.7.5 p 5) states

    The operation of the atomic_fetch and modify generic functions are nearly equivalent to the operation of the corresponding op= compound assignment operators. The only differences are that the compound assignment operators are not guaranteed to operate atomically, ...

    Although there are obviously also operators that act on atomic objects, 5.1.2.4 p 4 gives the completely false impression that atomic operations would only be a matter of the C library:

    The library defines a number of atomic operations (7.17) ...

    — Pointer types are missing for atomic_fetch_OP

    In the general introduction (7.17.1 p4) there is explicitly an extension of the notations to atomic pointer types:

    For atomic pointer types, M is ptrdiff_t.

    Whereas the only section where this notation is relevant (7.17.7.5 atomic_fetch_OP) is restricted to atomic integer types, but then later talks about the result of such operations on address types.

    — Vocabulary —

    For the vocabulary, there is a mixture of the use of the verb combinations between load/store, read/write and fetch/assign. What is the difference? Is there any?

    — Over all —

    This is

    Conclusion

    Combining all these texts, a number of constraints emerge for arithmetic types on platforms that support the atomics extension. They would better be stated as such.

    1. Since sign representation is a property of a type and not an operation. To comply to the atomics extension all signed integer types must have two's representation for negative values.
    2. Pointer arithmetic must have a variant that always has defined behavior, only that the stored address may be invalid, if the addition or subtraction passed beyond the boundaries of the object. But that behavior is not defined by the standard, the negation of undefined doesn't give a definition.
    3. Binary integer operations +, -, &, | and ^ must have versions that do not trap.
    4. All floating point operations must have versions that don't raise signals.

    The distinction in operations on atomics that are realized by operators (all arithmetic) and only by generic functions is arbitrary. As soon as a type has a lock-free atomic_compare_exchange operation, all fetch_op or op_fetch generic functions can be synthesized almost trivially.

    Current practice

    Both gcc and clang permit atomic_fetch_add and atomic_fetch_sub on atomic pointer types.

    Both disallow floating point types for the functions but allow them for the operators.

    Gcc extends the infrastructure that it provides of atomics to op_fetch generic fuctions and adds a new operator nand.

    Suggested strategy for improvement

    I suggest to first do some minimal changes to the text with a TC to avoid its contradictions and to centralize its requirements. Then, in a feature request for a new version of the standard we could discuss to add some more features that would make the approach internally consistent.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Change the beginning of 5.1.2.4 p5:

    The library defines a number of atomic operations (7.17) and operations on mutexes (7.26.4) that are specially identified as synchronization operations.

    to

    There are a number of operations that are specially identified as synchronization operations: if the implementation supports the atomics extension these are operators and generic functions that act on atomic objects (6.5 and 7.17); if the implementation supports the thread extension these are operations on mutexes (7.26.4).

    Replace paragraph 6.2.6.1 p9

    Loads and stores of objects with atomic types are done with memory_order_seq_cst semantics.

    by the following

    All operations that act on atomic objects that do not specify otherwise have memory_order_seq_cst memory consistency. If the operation with identical values on the unqualified type is erroneous it results in an unspecific object representation, that may or may not be an invalid value for the type, such as an invalid address or a floating point NaN. Thereby no such operation may by itself raise a signal, a trap, a floating point exception or result otherwise in an interruption of the control flow.FOOTNOTE

    FOOTNOTE Whether or not an atomic operation may be interrupted by a signal depends on the lock-free property of the underlying type.

    Insert a new paragraph after 6.2.6.2 p2

    Implementations that support the atomics extension, represent all signed integers with two's complement such that the object representation with sign bit 1 and all value bits zero is a normal value.

    Insert a new paragraph after 6.5 p3

    An operation on an lvalue with an atomic type, that consists of the evaluation of the object, an optional arithmetic operation and a side effect for updating the stored value forms a single read-modify-write operation.

    Remove the following phrase in 6.5.2.4 p2:

    Postfix ++ on an object with atomic type is a read-modify-write operation with memory_order_seq_cst memory order semantics.

    Remove the following phrase in 6.5.16.2 p3:

    If E1 has an atomic type, compound assignment is a read-modify-write operation with memory_order_seq_cst memory order semantic

    Replace 7.17.7 p1

    There are only a few kinds of operations on atomic types, though there are many instances of those kinds. This subclause specifies each general kind.

    by

    In addition to the operations on atomic objects that are described by operators, there are a few kinds of operations that are specified as generic functions. This subclause specifies each generic function. After evaluation of its arguments, each of these generic functions forms a single read, write or read-modify-write operation with same general properties as described in 6.2.6.1 p9.

    Assuming that the intent of 7.17.7.5 has been to allow operations on atomic pointer types, in p1, change:

    ... to an object of any atomic integer type. None of these operations is applicable to atomic_bool

    to

    ... to an object of any atomic integer or pointer type, as long as the unqualified type is valid as left operand of the corresponding operator op=.FOOTNOTE

    FOOTNOTE: Thus these operations are not permitted for pointers to atomic _Bool, and only "add" and "sub" variants are permitted for atomic pointer types.

    Since this topic is then covered already by a more general section, remove this sentence from p3:

    For address types, the result may be an undefined address, but the operations otherwise have no undefined behavior.

    In 7.17.7.5 p 5 replace:

    ... the compound assignment operators are not guaranteed to operate atomically, and ...

    by

    ... the order parameter may make the memory consistency less strict than memory_order_seq_cst, and that ...

    Future Directions

    An editorial revision of the C standard should clarify the vocabulary for the use of the terms load, store, read, write, modify, fetch and assign.

    A feature revision of the standard should:


    Oct 2015 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    Proposed Committee Response

    The committee agrees that there may be a few changes warranted to resolve inconsistencies as well as larger issues that are likely to only be addressable in a future revision of the Standard. The committee prefers to see these concerns separated into new papers rather than to attempt to accept any of the Suggested Technical Corrigendum items.

    DR 484 Prev <— Review —> Next DR 409, or summary at top



    DR 487

    DR 485 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 488, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2015-11-22
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1987
    Subject: timespec vs. tm

    Summary

    The standard appears to be inconsistent on timespec structure versus tm structure with respect to normative requirements. Both have: The semantics of the members and their normal ranges are expressed in the comments. But, for timespec, it appears as a footnote, while for tm, it appears in the body of the standard.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Move that sentence from footnote 317 in 7.27.1#4 to be in paragraph 4


    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee spent considerable time understanding the change requested and accepted it as The Proposed Technical Corrigendum below.
    Change §7.27.1p4 sentence 2 and footnote 317 from:
    The timespec structure shall contain at least the following members, in any order.317)

    317) The tv_sec member is a linear count of seconds and may not have the normal semantics of a time_t. The semantics of the members and their normal ranges are expressed in the comments.

    to:
    The timespec structure shall contain at least the following members, in any order, where the semantics of the members and their normal ranges are expressed in the comments.

    317) The tv_sec member is a linear count of seconds and may not have the normal semantics of a time_t.

    DR 485 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 488, or summary at top



    DR 488

    DR 487 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 489, or summary at top


    Submitter: Philipp Klaus Krause
    Submission Date: 2015-12-09
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1991
    Subject: c16rtomb() on wide characters encoded as multiple char16_t

    Summary

    Section 7.28.1 describes the function c16rtomb(). In particular, it states "When c16 is not a valid wide character, an encoding error occurs". "wide character" is defined in section 3.7.3 as "value representable by an object of type wchar_t, capable of representing any character in the current locale". This wording seems to imply that, e.g. for the common cases (e.g, an implementation that defines __STDC_UTF_16__ and a program that uses an UTF-8 locale), c16rtomb() will return -1 when it encounters a character that is encoded as multiple char16_t (for UTF-16 a wide character can be encoded as a surrogate pair consisting of two char16_t). In particular, c16rtomb() will not be able to process strings generated by mbrtoc16().

    I would like to implement a standard-conforming c16rtomb() for SDCC, that allows conversion from all of UTF-16 (not just the basic multilingual plane) to UTF-8. It seems to me that this is currently not possible.

    On the other hand, the description of mbrtoc16() described in section 7.28.1 states "If the function determines that the next multibyte character is complete and valid, it determines the values of the corresponding wide characters". So it considers it possible that a single multibyte character translates into multiple wide characters. So maybe the meaning of "wide character" in section 7.28.1 is different from definition of "wide character" in section 3.7.3.

    In either case, the intended behaviour of c16rtomb() for characters encoded as multiple char16_t seems unclear. The issue has been discussed in the thread "A function to convert char16_t strings to char strings" in comp.std.c.

    Suggested Change

    I see two possible options:


    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    After discussion, the committee concluded that mbstate was already specified to handle this case, and as such the second interpretation is intended. The committee believes that there is an underspecification, and solicited a further paper from the author along the lines of the second option. Although not discussed a Suggested Technical Corrigendum can be found at N2040.

    DR 487 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 489, or summary at top



    DR 489

    DR 488 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 490, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2016-01-18
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1994
    Subject: Integer Constant Expression

    Summary

    In an integer constant expression (ICE) in 6.6p6, if an operand is NOT evaluated, must it follow the constraints and semantics of 6.6?

    WG14 messages 14092 to 14102 (with subject of: Fixed size array or VLA?) discuss this issue.

    Places where expressions are not evaluated:

    Examples of 'funny' code (that are allowed in expressions that are not evaluated):

    Places where ICEs are used:

    Several people expressed an opinion that just parsing the expression (syntax) without depending upon any values (semantics) is a good thing. However, sizeof(var) depends upon var being a fixed size array versus VLA to determine if it is a valid ICE. So, some semantic checking must be done.

    Some parts of the C standard that might help answer the question follow.

    Footnote 118 in 6.6p11 shows the use of 'funny' code:

    static int i = 2 || 1 / 0;

    6.6p2:

    A constant expression can be evaluated during translation rather than runtime, and accordingly may be used in any place that a constant may be.

    6.4.6p2 has:

    An operand is an entity on which an operator acts.
    Seems to me that if an operand is not evaluated, then nothing is being acted upon, so is not an operand.

    By 6.6p10

    An implementation may accept other forms of constant expressions.
    any implementation may accept these unevaluated expressions; but that does not mean that all implementations must accept them. And, by the committee discussion in DR 312 against C99, these "other forms" cannot be an ICE (those words are not in C99 or C11).

    3.1 access note 3:

    Expressions that are not evaluated do not access objects.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add (something along the lines of) either

    after "operands" in the first line of 6.6p6 and second line in 6.6p8.

    Perhaps, add a footnote giving an example to the phrase being added.

    Add to the end of 6.6p10:

    however, they are not integer constant expressions.

    Also, update J.2 items on ICE and arithmetic constant expression.


    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee does not consider this a defect.

    Proposed Committee Response

    Extending integer constant expressions could be considered for the next revision of the standard.

    To the question, unevaluated operands of integer constant expressions must adhere to the constraints of §6.6.

    DR 488 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 490, or summary at top



    DR 490

    DR 489 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 491, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2016-01-18
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N1995
    Subject: Unwritten Assumptions About if-then

    Summary

    In trying to determine if exp(infinity) is a range error, I have come across an unwritten assumption (held by many members of the committee) with respect to: "if <violation> then <consequence>". WG14 email messages 13920 to 13937 (with subject of: Meaning of IF-THEN) have a discussion of this.

    Message 13925 has in part: That these "if-then" statements were meant to follow the ordinary-language model, where "if <violation> then <consequence>" promises that <violation> would necessarily lead to <consequence>, but nothing more. That is similar to the Boolean model. But that has to be combined with a general rule that when the C standard doesn't mention <consequence> as a visible action in some well-defined circumstance, then it is guaranteed that it does not occur.

    Message 13925 also has: There is a related issue: Just because some defined behavior is allowed to fail, it was not intended that it could always fail.

    Message 13937 has in part: In general, when the C standard doesn't say that something specific is supposed to happen, it intended that nothing happens. Explicit permission is given for errno to be set under certain circumstances

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Add to 4.0 Conformance after paragraph 1, words along the lines of:

    Unless stated otherwise (errno is one such otherwise), when the C standard doesn't say that something specific is supposed to happen, it is intended that nothing happens. Also, just because some defined behavior is allowed to fail, it was not intended that it could always fail.

    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    After discussion, the committee consensus was that this was not in fact a defect.

    Proposed Committee Response

    This is not a defect.

    The Standard is written in English using normal conventions.

    DR 489 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 491, or summary at top



    DR 491

    DR 490 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 492, or summary at top


    Submitter: Douglas Walls
    Submission Date: 2016-02-23
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2000
    Subject: Concern with Keywords that Match Reserved Identifiers

    Summary

    Should a conforming program be allowed to use identifiers spelled with a leading underscore followed by an uppercase letter that match the spelling of a keyword?

    The C committee has been adding keywords to the C standard spelled with a leading underscore followed by an uppercase letter so that they will not conflict with identifiers that are not already reserved to the implementation, i.e. so existing programs that conform to the C standard are not impacted by addition of new keywords in a new revision of the C standard.

    So the C standard spells keywords in two ways:
    7.1.2p4 provides restrictions on when macros with names lexically identical to keywords can be defined, thus infering when macro names lexically identical to keywords can be defined.

    As specified in 7.1.3, identifiers spelled with a leading underscore followed by an uppercase letter are reserved to the implementation.  While those identifiers beginning with a lowercase letter are not.  Thus, for example, a conforming program can use inline as a macro name, but a conforming program cannot use _Noreturn as a macro name.

    Though the C committee has added new keywords from the reserved identifier namespace, the committee has not updated the rules about reserved identifiers.  What I don't know is if that is intentional or an oversight, as I don't ever remember discussing the issue from that perspective during a committee meeting.

    The issue came to my attention when I found some C standard headers defining _Noreturn as a macro because they knew it is an identifier reserved to the implementation.  I was a bit surprised, as it required a otherwise conforming program to #undef _Noreturn in order to use the _Noreturn keyword as a function specifier.  The macro in this case was expanding to a gcc like attribute syntax recognized by the compiler.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    Replace the first two bullets under 7.1.3p1 with:

      — All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use, except those identifiers which are lexically identical to keywords. footnote)
      — All identifiers that begin with an underscore are always reserved for use as identifiers with file scope in both the ordinary and tag name spaces, except those identifiers which are lexically identical to keywords.

    footnote) Allows identifiers spelled with a leading underscore followed by an uppercase letter that match the spelling of a keyword to be used as macro names. 


    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee accepts the first suggestion as the Proposed Technical Corrigendum.

    Proposed Technical Corrigendum

    Change §7.1.3.p1 first bullet from:

      — All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use.

    to

      — All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use, except those identifiers which are lexically identical to keywords. footnote)

    footnote) Allows identifiers spelled with a leading underscore followed by an uppercase letter that match the spelling of a keyword to be used as macro names by the program.

    DR 490 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 492, or summary at top



    DR 492

    DR 491 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 493, or summary at top


    Submitter: Clive H. Pygott
    Submission Date: 2016-03-01
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2007
    Subject: Named Child struct-union with no Member

    Summary

    Introduction

    Some weeks ago I posted the following code to the reflector after an argument at work as to whether it was legal, and if so, what was it meant to do?

    
           struct  S1
                {  union U11
                        {int    m11;
                         float  m12;
                        };
    
                   int m13;
                } s1;
    
    

    The issue is that U11 isn't an anonymous union (because it has a name U11) but doesn't declare a member of S1. When tried with a number of compilers the result was either that it was rejected as a constraint error or it was treated as an anonymous union, with m11 and m12 accessible as though they were members of S1 (e.g. s1.m11 = 42;). The declaration of union U11 was also added at file scope, so could be used in other structs.

    After some discussion (thanks to Doug and Roberto), it was concluded that the code was intended to be a constraint error because it can be argued that it violates the first constraint in 6.7.2.1 para 2 "A struct-declaration that does not declare an anonymous structure or anonymous union shall contain a struct-declarator-list". The syntax fragment its referring to is:

            struct-declaration:
                   specifier-qualifier-list struct-declarator-listopt ;
                   static_assert-declaration
    

    In parsing the above code “union U11 {int m11; float m12;} ;” is a struct-declaration. It is believed that the intended reading is:

  • union U11 {int m11; float m12;}” is a specifier-qualifier-list
  • There is no struct-declarator-list
  • Hence, as U11 isn't an anonymous union and doesn't have a struct-declarator-list, it violates the quoted constraint.

    However, there would appear to be a different reading that says that this struct-declaration does “contain a struct-declarator-list”. So it shouldn't be a constraint error hence the potential need for a DR to clarify the intent (discussed in the next section).

    The alternative reading of the constraint requirement comes about because the specifier-qualifier-list union U11 {int m11; float m12;} is interpreted by recursively entering the same part of the syntax tree. As its interpreted, int m11; and float m12; are struct-declarations, where “m11” and “m12” are struct-declarator-lists,. So the struct-declaration for U11 does contain a struct-declarator-lists, so shouldn't be a constraint error.

    The response to that argument on the reflector was that ‘whenever a constraint refers to elements of the syntax tree, it means those elements in the term currently being processed, and not any terms that may be found by recursively traversing the tree’. However, I cannot see this principle stated anywhere in the standard.

    Hence, I'd argue that whether this code is legal or not is ambiguous and a DR is required, either to:

  • Establish the principle that “whenever a constraint refers to elements of the syntax tree, it means those elements in the term currently being processed, and not any terms that maybe found by recursively traversing the tree”, or
  • Reword the constraint in 6.7.2.1 para 2 to clarify that the above code is intended to be aconstraint error, for example by adding ‘shall contain a struct-declarator-list, other than any that may be found in the interpretation of the specifier-qualifier-list

  • Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    The committee formed a strong consensus that this was not a defect.

    Proposed Committee Response

    There are implementations that allow this construct and other variations, but the committee is clear that since union U11 isn‘t anonymous, it is a constraint violation.

    DR 491 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 493, or summary at top



    DR 493

    DR 492 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 494, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2016-01-21
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2025
    Subject: Mutex Initialization Underspecified

    Summary

    The C11 threads library defines a mutex type, mtx_t, and a number of functions that operate objects of the type. The mtx_t is fully described in §7.26.1, Introduction (to the Threads section) as follows:

    a complete object type that holds an identifier for a mutex;

    No other description of the type appears elsewhere in the text.

    Among the functions provided by the C11 threads library that operate on objects of the mtx_t type are mtx_init() and mtx_destroy().

    The mtx_init(mtx_t *mtx, int type) function is described in §7.26.4.2 as follows:

    -2- The mtx_init function creates a mutex object with properties indicated by type, which must have one of the six values:

    -3- If the mtx_init function succeeds, it sets the mutex pointed to by mtx to a value that uniquely identifies the newly created mutex.

    Returns
    -4- The mtx_init function returns thrd_success on success, or thrd_error if the request could not be honored.

    The mtx_destroy(mtx_t *mtx) function is then described in §7.26.4.1 like so:

    The mtx_destroy function releases any resources used by the mutex pointed to by mtx. No threads can be blocked waiting for the mutex pointed to by mtx.

    Problems With mtx_t

    Since mtx_t is a complete object type, what are the semantics of copying objects of the type (either by assignment or by passing them by value between functions) and passing pointers to distinct copies of the same mutex object as arguments to the C11 threads functions?

    Problems With mtx_init()

    The specification of mtx_init() raises the following questions to which the standard doesn't provide clear answers.

    1. What is the behavior of mtx_init() when called with a pointer to an object initialized to all zeros (such as a mutex object with static storage duration)? Are such calls valid, or if not, must the function fail by returning thrd_error, or is its behavior unspecified, or perhaps undefined? (If it is the same as calling it on an uninitialized object then how does one statically initialize a mutex?)
    2. Similarly, what is the function's behavior when called with a pointer to an uninitialized mutex object (one whose value is indeterminate)? (Presumably, it should be to initialize the object to a valid state and not require the object to have been initialized to all zeros, but this is not specified.)
    3. What is the function's behavior when called with the same pointer more than once (without a call to mtx_destroy() in between)?
    4. What is the function's behavior when called with a pointer to a locked mutex object?
    5. The function description specifies that the type argument must have one of six values but lists only four. What are the remaining two values of the type argument? (Note: this problem is the subject of DR 479.)
    6. What is the function's behavior when type argument does not have one of the listed values? (Note that since the argument is a plain int, choosing not to define the behavior will make the function more dangerous to use than alternatives such as POSIX threads. Choosing to require the function to detect invalid arguments and reject them with an error exposes a problem due to its binary return value's inability to indicate different kinds of errors.)
    7. If the function is required to fail when the type argument isn't valid, what is its required behavior in this case when the mtx argument is null?

    Problems With mtx_destroy()

    The specification of mtx_destroy() raises the following questions:

    1. What is the behavior of mtx_destroy() when called with a pointer to an object initialized to all zeros (such as a mutex object with static storage duration) that has not been passed to mtx_init()? (This is important because it might mean that programs need to associate an external flag with each mutex object indicating whether or not it has been initialized in a way that requires mtx_destroy() to be called on it.)
    2. What is the behavior of the function when called with the same pointer more than once? Is it required to have no effect or is it undefined?
    3. What is the behavior of the function when threads are blocked waiting for the mutex it's called on? (The text is lax with the wording here, and assuming the function's behavior is undefined in this case, the text should phrase the requirement using the word "shall" rather than "can" and preferably make the undefined behavior explicit, for example similarly to how POSIX specifies the similar requirement in its API.)
    4. What state is a mutex object in after mtx_destroy() has been called with it as an argument? Can such an object be subsequently passed as argument to any of the other mutex functions? For example, can such a mutex object be safely passed to mtx_init()? To any of the other mutex functions such as mtx_lock() and, if so, with what effects? (Undefined or error?)

    Other Problems Due to the Underspecification Of Mutex Initialization

    Neither mtx_init() nor mtx_destroy() discussed above, nor any of the other functions that operate on mtx_t objects specifies what state the object is required to be in when the function is called. In particular, none of the functions specfies whether the object is required to be initialized or how.

    That gives rise to the following general questions to which the standard fails to provide clear answers:

    1. Is an uninitialized mutex object (i.e., one with an indeterminate value) a valid argument to any of the other mutex functions besides those discussed above? If it isn't a valid argument (as is the most likely answer), are the mutex functions expected to detect the condition and fail by returning thrd_error or is the behavior unspecified, or perhaps undefined?
    2. Similarly, is a statically initialized mutex object (one declared with static storage duration and initialized to all zeros) a valid argument to any of the the other mutex functions? For instance, is such a mutex a valid argument to mtx_lock() and if so, what is the "type" of such a mutex (is it plain, recurisive, or timed), and what state is it in? (Put another way, what are the effects of calling mtx_lock() on such a mutex?)
    3. Assuming a statically initialized mutex object is a valid argument to only mtx_init() but not any of the mutex functions, what mechanism are C11 programs expected to use to statically initialize mutex objects to make them valid arguments to functions such as mtx_lock() (the equivalent of the POSIX threads PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER)? Note that while some systems do not provide an API to statically initialize a native mutex object the functionality can be emulated by storing a flag in the C11 mtx_t object and checking that flag in every mutex function, lazily initializing the object as necessary. It is unclear whether C11 intends to require implementations to provide this functionality.
    4. Is there any limit on the the number of times mtx_init() cam be called with a distinct object as an argument without an intervening call to mtx_destroy()? (In other words, must calls to mtx_init() and mtx_destroy() with the same mutex object be paired?) If it is intended to allow implementations to impose such a limit (as some do) how do programs distinguish the usually transient nature of exceeding such a limit from permanent mutex initialization errorss (such as invalid type arguments)?

    One might be able to guess what some of the answers to the questions above might be intended to be if one assumes that the library is meant to be implemented on top of an existing threads library such as POSIX threads, but that is not reflected in the specification in any way. Other reasonable guesses include that C11 threads library is intended to provide a simpler though no less safe interface to the underlying threads library on the system (i.e., with no instances of undefined behavior the underlying threads library isn't already subject to), but the lack of even the most basic requirements raises doubt about this intent. Another possible guess is that the C11 threads library is intended to be (or should be possible to be) independent of the underlying threads implementation and provide its own distinct guarantees and impose its own requirements (even though it in many cases fails to articulate them). In the absence of answers to these questions the C11 threads library is essentially unusable as a specification either for the development of implementations facilitating portable code, or for writing portable code.

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    The C11 threads specification should be amended to clearly answer the questions above. Any new requirements should consider the goal of implementing the specification in terms of an existings threads implementation such as the POSIX threads library.


    Apr 2016 meeting

    Committee Discussion

    This DR records the committee’s understanding of the intent of the standard. The resolution to DR 469 must include a Propsed Technical Corrigendum consistent with the answers provided below.

    As one example required to be resolved in DR 469,

    change ‘creates’ to ‘initializes’ in mtx_init and mx_destroy,

    Proposed Committee Response

    This document asks quite a number of questions, and they are answered according to the section title in which they were asked. These answers rely on changes made in DR 469.

    Problems with mtx_t

    The semantics of copying a mtx_t are implementation defined, much like FILE §7.21.3p6.

    Problems with mtx_init()

    1. mtx_init will attempt to initialize whatever memory is referenced by the pointer passed in, so it will initialize static memory preset to zero. Such calls are valid.
    2. mtx_init will attempt to initialize whatever memory is referenced by the pointer passed in, so it will initialize memory that has previously been used as a mtx_t.
    3. It is undefined behavior to call mtx_init() on memory without an intervening mtx_destroy.
    4. It is undefined behavior to call mtx_init() on memory without an intervening mtx_destroy regardless of the lock condition.
    5. See DR 414 for the resolution to the miscounted variations of mtx_init() options.
    6. Undefined behavior is the result of passing values other than those specified in the standard. The wording in the Standard shall change from ‘must’ to ‘shall’ in §7.26.4.2p2.
    7. thrd_error shall be returned by mtx_init() when passed a NULL pointer.

    Problems with mtx_destroy()

    1. It is undefined behavior to call mtx_destroy() with a pointer to an object that has not been initialized by a call to mtx_init(). In §7.26.4.1p2 the editor should consider changing ‘can’ to ‘shall’.
    2. It is undefined behavior to call mtx_destroy() with a pointer to an object that has not been initialized by a call to mtx_init(), so calling it twice without an intervening mtx_init results in undefined behavior.
    3. Calling mtx_destroy() while it is locked is intended to be undefined and will be resolved by DR 469.
    4. The memory that had been used as an mtx_t object has indeterminate value. Undefined behavior results if it is subsequently used as an argument to other mtx functions other than mtx_init.

    Other Problems

    1. Memory with indeterminate value is appropriate to be used only with mtx_init as described above. All other uses result in undefined behavior.
    2. Static memory preset to zeros is appropriate to be used only with mtx_init as described above. All other uses result in undefined behavior.
    3. The C Standard provides no mechanism to statically initialize a mtx_t.
    4. There is the limit of 1 call to mtx_init() without an intervening call to mtx_destroy().

    DR 492 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 494, or summary at top



    DR 494

    DR 493 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 495, or summary at top


    Submitter: Clark Nelson
    Submission Date: 2016-03-17
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2027
    Subject: Part 1: Alignment specifier expression evaluation

    Summary

    Point D of DR439 (a.k.a. N1729) raises the question of the meaning of a non-constant expression in an abstract declarator. The other points of that DR are rather more straightforward, but point D requires more thought. Here I present some additional analysis I have done on the question.

    Overview

    There are three places an abstract declarator or type name can appear and (at least potentially) not be part of a larger expression:

    1. parameter-declaration
    2. alignment-specifier
    3. atomic-type-specifier

    (When this topic comes up, the case of a generic selection is generally raised as well. However, it should be clearly understood that a type name appearing in a generic selection is necessarily part of a larger expression, so any expression therein isn't a full expression, so DR439 does not raise any issues about it. It's certainly possible that there are issues, but if so, they need to be spelled out. Once they have been clearly defined, it will hopefully become clear whether they should be considered along with DR439 or separately.)

    So let's consider three file-scope declarations:

    1. void f(int [rand()]);
    2. _Alignas(int [rand()]) int i;
    3. _Atomic(int [rand()]) a;

    The first declaration has a clearly defined meaning. According to 6.7.6.2p5, the expression is “treated as if it were replaced by *”. Therefore:

    These are both true even if the declaration appears in a block scope.

    For the second and third declarations, the standard today gives no clue how the expression should be handled. The only thing that is clear (even though the standard doesn't say so) is that, if the declarations are at file scope, any answer that requires evaluating the expressions is wrong.

    The alignment specifier case

    The interesting thing about _Alignas is that the “answer” is just a number; all other details of the type named are irrelevant. Since the alignment of an array type must be the same as that of its element type, the value of the array size is irrelevant, so strictly speaking it need not be evaluated.

    This is similar to sizeof; according to 6.7.6.2p5:

    Where a size expression is part of the operand of a sizeof operator and changing the value of the size expression would not affect the result of the operator, it is unspecified whether or not the size expression is evaluated.

    For an alignment specifier, I would prefer that the behavior not depend on the scope in which it appears. It would also be simpler to require that a non-constant size expression not be evaluated than to permit implementation latitude. That would be consistent with the parameter declaration case, and I doubt that any real-world code would change behavior as a result.

    As an aside, here is an interesting related example:

    size_t s = sizeof(int [rand()]);

    According to 6.5.3.4p2:

    If the type of the operand is a variable length array type, the operand is evaluated; otherwise, the operand is not evaluated and the result is an integer constant.

    If the declaration of s appeared at file scope, the fact that the result of sizeof is not an integer constant would run afoul of the constraints on initialization, so a diagnostic would be required. That might be considered enough to override the requirement that “the operand is evaluated” in an initializer at file scope – but the phrasing would seem to be suboptimal.


    DR 493 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 495, or summary at top



    DR 495

    DR 494 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 496, or summary at top


    Submitter: Clark Nelson
    Submission Date: 2016-03-17
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2027
    Subject: Part 2: Atomic specifier expression evaluation

    Summary

    Point D of DR439 (a.k.a. N1729) raises the question of the meaning of a non-constant expression in an abstract declarator. The other points of that DR are rather more straightforward, but point D requires more thought. Here I present some additional analysis I have done on the question.

    Overview

    There are three places an abstract declarator or type name can appear and (at least potentially) not be part of a larger expression:

    1. parameter-declaration
    2. alignment-specifier
    3. atomic-type-specifier

    (When this topic comes up, the case of a generic selection is generally raised as well. However, it should be clearly understood that a type name appearing in a generic selection is necessarily part of a larger expression, so any expression therein isn't a full expression, so DR439 does not raise any issues about it. It's certainly possible that there are issues, but if so, they need to be spelled out. Once they have been clearly defined, it will hopefully become clear whether they should be considered along with DR439 or separately.)

    So let's consider three file-scope declarations:

    1. void f(int [rand()]);
    2. _Alignas(int [rand()]) int i;
    3. _Atomic(int [rand()]) a;

    The first declaration has a clearly defined meaning. According to 6.7.6.2p5, the expression is “treated as if it were replaced by *”. Therefore:

    These are both true even if the declaration appears in a block scope.

    For the second and third declarations, the standard today gives no clue how the expression should be handled. The only thing that is clear (even though the standard doesn't say so) is that, if the declarations are at file scope, any answer that requires evaluating the expressions is wrong.

    The atomic type specifier case

    _Atomic-of-array types are already disallowed; see 6.7.2.4p3. The following example avoids that restriction, but still has a non-constant expression in an atomic specifier:

    _Atomic(int (*)[rand()]) p1;

    What would such a declaration mean, if it were allowed?

    It would be tempting to conclude that it is not allowed at file scope, since a variably modified type is involved. Unfortunately, the standard doesn't actually say so – or at least not yet. According to 6.7.6p3:

    Furthermore, any type derived by declarator type derivation from a variably modified type is itself variably modified.

    But an atomic type specifier isn't described as involving declarator type derivation. There is definitely a kind of type derivation involved, but possibly of a new and different kind.

    On the other hand, because of the unique dual nature of the syntax for _Atomic, the preferred answer is probably that the previous declaration would have the same meaning as this declaration:

    int (*_Atomic p2)[rand()];

    If a qualifier other than _Atomic were used, the interpretation of the declaration and the contained expression would be pretty clear from the standard. But for _Atomic, the words of the standard seem to more or less rewrite this declaration into the prior form, about which the standard has less to say, by and large.

    If it is true, as seems likely, that any atomic type specifier containing a non-constant expression can be expressed equivalently using an atomic type qualifier instead, then presumably the question of what to do when the expression is syntactically a full expression is not all that interesting.

    What remains interesting is how to express this intention normatively.


    DR 494 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 496, or summary at top



    DR 496

    DR 495 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 497, or summary at top


    Submitter: Martin Sebor
    Submission Date: 2016-03-23
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2031
    Subject: offsetof questions

    Summary

    The offsetof macro is specified in the normative text of the C11 standard in §7.19 Common Definitions <stddef.h> as follows:

    The macros [defined in the header <stddef.h>] are... offsetof(type, member-designator) which expands to an integer constant expression that has type size_t, the value of which is the offset in bytes, to the structure member (designated by member-designator), from the beginning of its structure (designated by type). The type and member designator shall be such that given static type t;
    then the expression &(t.member-designator) evaluates to an address constant. (If the specified member is a bit-field, the behavior is undefined.)

    In addition, undefined uses of the macro are mentioned in the informative §J.2 Undefined Behavior using the following words:

    — The member designator parameter of an offsetof macro is an invalid right operand of the . operator for the type parameter, or designates a bit-field (7.19).

    A number of questions have been independently raised about this specification over the years, both by C (and C++) committee members and by implementers of both languages (the C++ defintion of the macro is largely equivalent to C's), pointing out gaps or aspects lacking in clarity. Most recently some of the questions were raised in the thread (SC22WG14.13852) what's a member-designator? As a result of the lack of clarity, implementations diverge in what offsetof expressions they accept. In one case, an implementer of a compiler known for its conformance and high quality of diagnostics interpreted the specification as restricting the member-designator operand of the macro to ordinary identifiers and to the exclusion of references to subobjects.

    For example, given the following code:

    struct A { int n, a [2]; };
    struct B { struct A a; };
    
    int noff = offsetof (struct B, a.n);
    int aoff = offsetof (struct B, a.a [1]);

    this implemenation issues the diagnostics below.

    warning: using extended field designator is an extension [-Wextended-offsetof]
    int noff = offsetof (struct B, a.n);
               ^                    ~~
    warning: using extended field designator is an extension [-Wextended-offsetof]
    int aoff = offsetof (struct B, a.a [1]);
               ^                    ~~~~~~

    In other instances, some implementations reject the following example with an error, indicating that they are not prepared to handle the -> operator in this context.

    struct A { int i; };
    struct B { struct A a [1]; };
    
    int ioff = offsetof (struct B, a->i);

    Some of the questions that have been identified are outlined in the following list.

    Some of the same questions and others were summarized a number of years ago by Joseph Myers in his paper on offsetof. Althugh Joseph chose not to submit the paper to WG14 we believe many are still relevant and should be dealt with by clarifying the text of the standard.


    DR 495 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 497, or summary at top



    DR 497

    DR 496 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 498, or summary at top


    Submitter: Fred J. Tydeman
    Submission Date: 2016-03-24
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2032
    Subject: "white-space character" defined in two places

    Summary

    "white-space character" is defined differently in two places in the standard.

    white-space character is defined in 6.4 as:

    space, horizontal tab, new-line, vertical tab, form-feed

    standard white-space character is defined in 7.4.1.10 for isspace() as:

    space, horizontal tab, new-line, vertical tab, form-feed, carriage return

    One place it matters is 7.21.6.2 fscanf().

    7.21.6.2 fscanf() in paragraph 5 talks about white-space character(s) in the directive. Since there is no reference to isspace, it must be referring to 6.4 (which I believe is wrong).

    Paragraph 8, in the same section, talks about input white-space characters, but refers to isspace.

    In the following code, the \r (carriage return) is a directive:

    
    #include  <stdio.h>
    int main(void){
      static int rc, cnt1, cnt2, i; 
      rc = sscanf( " 123", "\r%n%i%n", &cnt1, &i, &cnt2);
      printf("rc=%i, cnt1=%i, i=%i, cnt2=%i\n", rc, cnt1, i, cnt2); 
      return 0; 
    }
    
    

    Is the \r a white-space character or an ordinary multibyte character?

    By 5.2.1#3, the \r is part of the basic execution character set, but is not part of the basic source character set (as Doug Gwyn pointed out in message 14152).

    By 6.4#3, the \r is not a white-space character.

    By 7.21.6.2#3, #5 and #6, since the \r is not a white-space character, it is an ordinary multibyte character. Therefore, since the \r does not match the characters of the stream, cnt1, i, and cnt2 are not altered. However, this not what most implementations do. They output: rc=1, cnt1=1, i=123, cnt2=4

    I see a mismatch between what implementations are doing and what the standard requires.

    Another issue is "white space" in 7.21.6.2#15. It should be "white-space characters". Section 6.4 defines "white space" as both comments and white-space characters. So, the use of "white space" in 7.21.6.2#15 would cause /* comments */ to be matched. The same issue applies to 7.29.2.2#15, 7.29.4.1.2#4, 7.22.1.4#4.

    Another issue is "white-space wide character" is not well defined (in 7.30.2.1.10) and is missing from the index. Does the "C" locale matter?

    Suggested Technical Corrigendum

    There are several ways this basic issue can be addressed.

    1. Add 'carriage return' to the definition of white-space in 6.4. However, this only makes 6.4 and isspace match for the "C" locale.
    2. Add '(as specified by the isspace function)' to 'white-space characters' throughout clause 7 of the standard. Add '(as specified by the iswspace function)' to 'white-space wide characters' throughout clause 7.
    3. Throughout clauses 5 and 6 (except for 5.1.1.2#7 which is execution), change 'white-space characters' to 'source white-space characters'. There might be an issue with 'non-white-space character' being changed to 'non-source-white-space character'.

      In clause 7.1.1, add definitions of 'execution white-space character' and 'execution white-space wide character'. Change 'white-space character' to 'execution white-space character' throughout clause 7. Change 'white-space wide character' to 'execution white-space wide character' throughout clause 7.

      Throughout clause 7, remove '(as specified by the isspace function)' and '(as specified by the iswspace function)'.

    4. In (perhaps) 7.1.1, add something along the lines of:
      In this clause, references to "white-space character" refer to execution white-space character as defined by isspace(). References to "white-space wide character" refer to execution white-space wide character as defined by iswspace().

      Throughout clause 7, remove '(as specified by the isspace function)' and '(as specified by the iswspace function)'.

    Some of the above changes also require corresponding changes to Annexes A and J.

    Also do these changes:

    1. In 7.21.6.2#15, 7.29.2.2#15, 7.29.4.1.2#4, change "white space" to "white-space characters".
    2. Give a better definition of "white-space wide character" in 7.30.2.1.10 with respect to "C" locale.
    3. Add "white-space wide character" to the index.

    DR 496 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 498, or summary at top



    DR 498

    DR 497 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 499, or summary at top


    Submitter: Philipp Klaus Krause
    Submission Date: 2016-04-11
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2037
    Subject: mblen, mbtowc, and wctomb thread-safety

    Summary

    This corresponds to Austin Group Defect #708 by Rich Felker. The following four paragraphs are copies of that Defect Report and the three responses, all from 2013.

    dalias (Rich Felker, musl libc): Per C11 7.1.4 paragraph 5, "Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the detailed descriptions that follow, library functions shall prevent data races as follows: A library function shall not directly or indirectly access objects accessible by threads other than the current thread unless the objects are accessed directly or indirectly via the function's arguments. A library function shall not directly or indirectly modify objects accessible by threads other than the current thread unless the objects are accessed directly or indirectly via the function's non-const arguments. Implementations may share their own internal objects between threads if the objects are not visible to users and are protected against data races." 7.22.7 (Multibyte/wide character conversion functions) does not specify that these functions are not required to avoid data races with other calls. The only time they would even potentially be subject to data races is for state-dependent encodings, which are all but obsolete; for single-byte or modern multi-byte (i.e. UTF-8) encodings, these functions are pure. Note that 7.29.6.3 (Restartable multibyte/wide character conversion functions) does make exceptions that the "r" versions of these functions are not required to avoid data races when the state argument is NULL.

    geoffclare: It seems odd that C11 would have different thread-safety requirements for mbrlen, mbrtowc, and wcrtomb with a null state argument than for mblen, mbtowc, and wctomb. We should query this with the C committee, as it may well be unintentional.

    dalias: I think there's a very good reason for the discrepancy: the restartable versions can store a partially-decoded character in the mbstate_t object, so even for state-independent encodings, there is state which would need to be protected against data races. The non-restartable versions, on the other hand, are pure except in the case of state-dependent encodings, which are mostly a relic of the past and which were never supported on most POSIX systems, since these encodings are mostly incompatible with POSIX filesystem semantics. Only implementations supporting such encodings (which might not even exist - can anyone confirm?) would incur the burden of avoiding data races. Note that these functions give applications access to information on whether the locale's encoding is state-dependent, so a portable application could use the restartable interfaces when the locale is state-dependent, and the non-restartable ones otherwise. As to the motivation behind my request for this change, I have spent a good deal of time investigating the performance bottlenecks in character-at-a-time multibyte processing, and it turns out that there is a fundamental bottleneck in the restartable interfaces due to their interface requirements for handling the ps argument and partially-decoded characters. For applications which don't need partial-character processing capability, I believe it would make sense to encourage a transition to the non-restartable interfaces, but of course this is problematic if the non-restartable interfaces are not thread-safe. In my experiments, I found the non-restartable interfaces capable of reaching roughly a 50% performance advantage over the restartable ones; this difference would of course become even more extreme if the core decoding algorithms were further optimized.

    nick: This will be raised as a potential defect with the C committee, and any decision on how to proceed should be made there first.

    It seems however that this was so far not brought to the attention of WG 14. There seems to be confusion about the thread-safety of mblen(), mbtowc() and wctomb() when the encoding is not state-dependent. While the C standard seems to imply that the functions are thread-safe when the encoding is not state-dependent, apparently some think otherwise. The GNU/Linux manpage for these functions states "MT-Unsafe race", and recommends to use mbrlen() instead. Thus clarification is needed.

    Possible Change

    A footnote could be added to 7.22.7 clarifying that the functions mblen(), mbtowc() and wctomb() do not keep internal state if the encoding is not state-dependent.


    DR 497 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 499, or summary at top



    DR 499

    DR 498 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 444, or summary at top


    Submitter: Rajan Bhakta
    Submission Date: 2016-04-12
    Source: WG14
    Reference Document: N2038
    Subject: Anonymous structure in union behavior

    Summary


    Given the following code:
    
    union U {
      struct {
        char B1;
        char B2;
        char B3;
        char B4;
      };
      int word;
    } u;
    
    Does the storage of B1, B2, B3 and B4 overlap?
    
    According to 6.7.2.1#13, the members should overlap in storage as they become members of 'union U'.
    At least one implementation (GCC) seems to NOT consider them to be overlapping.
    At least one implementation (IBM's XL LE AIX) considers them to be overlapping as the standard currently states.
    
    Similar code present in example 1 on 6.7.2.1#19.
    
    Suggested TC:
      If the intent is that the members do NOT overlap:
        Append to 6.7.2.1#13:
          Anonymous structures maintain the structure type if they are considered to be members of the containing union.*)
          *) This means the structure members are not considered to occupy the same storage as if they were directly union members.
      If the intent is that the members DO overlap:
        No change, or perhaps add on a comment to 6.7.2.1#19 Example 1:
        ...
        struct { int i, j; }; // anonymous structure, i and j now overlap in storage
        ...
      

    DR 498 Prev <— Open —> Next DR 444, or summary at top