Thousands of words that boil down to "intmax_t isn't ABI-stable". Who knew? (Everybody.)
> at least we’ll finally have the chance to have that discussion [about breaking ABI] with our communities, rather than just being outright denied the opportunity before Day 0.
[0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2901.htm
[1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3913.htm
Suppose I have a libfoo that has a public function that takes an intmax_t parameter. Or that has a public struct with an intmax_t field. It will be compiled for a particular definition of intmax_t. If you try to link it with a program that uses a different definition, it will fail.
The article's solution with the "MY_LIBC_NEW_CODE" define cannot work because no existing C code knows about "MY_LIBC_NEW_CODE".
The proposed mechanism is somewhat useful to a library that wants to provide multiple incompatible implementations of a function. (But this is mostly only interesting for libc implementations that need to handle historic incompatibilities between all the various Unix specs. Other libraries can just give their new, incompatible function a new name.) It's useless if you want to make an incompatible change to a type definition.
I don't get quite the same impression. The sense I get is more that such a change would basically need to happen "bottom-up":
> Some of [the scenarios that aren't fixed by this proposal] are just the normal dependency management issues. If you build a library on top of something else that uses one of the changed types (such as intmax_t or something else), then you can’t really upgrade until your dependents do.
> <snip>
> For those of us in large ecosystems who have to write plugins or play nice with other applications and system libraries, we’re generally the last to get the benefits.
In which case the benefit of the proposal (as far as I understand) is that such bottom-up changes can occur without forcibly breaking other consumers.
And to be honest, this sort of compiler-specific ABI interoperability is a non-problem that doesn't need solving, it's at most relevant for software developers of closed source libraries who distribute the libraries as precompiled blobs. But those must be stamped out for different target-triples anyway.
Ultimately any ABI discussions need to happen between CPU and OS vendors, compiler toolchains implement whatever comes out of those discussions.
idk, given how ABI impacts the evolution of C I think it's not unreasonable to provide a mechanism by which ABI can be evolved even if it's not specifically for compiler interop.
> Ultimately any ABI discussions need to happen between CPU and OS vendors, compiler toolchains implement whatever comes out of those discussions.
I think part of the article author's reasoning for proposing this feature is that toolchains have implemented something like this feature to try to address ABI issues and that the rest of the ecosystem could benefit from a similar technique.
For areas like application plugins via DLLs it's the OS ABI that matters.
Inter-compiler interop is also in play when the two compilers are the same one at different versions, or even potentially flags.
> Thankfully, we are not particularly concerned about the ability to upgrade this [user-redeclared stdlib] function: users who are declaring Standard Library functions without including the header like this are doing this strictly as experts. They have a strong expectation of what symbol they are getting from their distribution. Transparent aliases are meant to be used for functions which rely on type definitions or structures which may change, prompting the need to provide updated global variables and updated functions without breaking old binaries.
> <snip>
> Therefore, we do not do anything to support or inhibit such declarations. Implementations looking to keep such declarations working from older versions of code should consider leaving those old symbols within their binary artifacts (system tables, shared/static libraries, etc.) to continue supporting such a use case; this proposal is not going to address it or the myriad of other issues around this (such as strong/weak symbols and other attributes/aliasing issues).
To be fair, that section is talking about the stdlib specifically, but nothing jumps out to me as precluding it applying to libraries in general.
[0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3913.htm#d...
Well, I'd presume that's what the paper's "Introduction & Motivation" section is for. Do you take issue with the authors' statements there?
Conceptually intmax_t is a generic type of the form intmax_t<T>. Since C does not have generics, the T is chosen by the compiler during compile time.
But this means that the first time you compile any shared library with an intmax_t parameter or return value in one of its functions, you have permanently baked in the type parameter T to whatever the compiler chose it to be at that moment in time.
You cannot retroactively change intmax_t even if you change the symbols, because intmax_t runs into the same problem any generics system does, you cannot retroactively add instantiations for future types that were not explicitly compiled into the dynamic library.
Even if C gets generics and intmax_t would become obsolete either way, because you don't need intmax_t<T>, you can just have T.
intmax_t is only interesting for choosing the T and even then it is only interesting inside function implementations and never in their signatures.
So my conclusion is that intmax_t was a failed attempt at trying to be "clever" with the idea of introducing generics without introducing generics. This is an idea that is so doomed that anyone trying to rescue it, didn't really understand the problem with intmax_t.
The C committee doesn't want to rescue intmax_t. If they had a time machine most members would prevent it ever being added. But it was and now it can't be removed; it takes decades to get breaking changes into the standard.
intmax_t is a thornier problem than time_t and needs a more comprehensive approach that requires some careful assistance from the C standard itself. There's no completely fixing the mess. The goal is to find an acceptable solution that allows everybody to begin to move past intmax_t given the various technical and practical constraints. The goal is not to find a solution that allows for expanded use of intmax_t, at least not in the standard, though it may be the case it can never completely go away.