Intentionally or not, this post demonstrates one of the things that makes safer abstractions in C less desirable: the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex, which means it’s (1) not cross platform, and (2) pays the mutex overhead even in provably single-threaded contexts. In other words, it’s not a zero-cost abstraction.
C++’s shared pointer has the same problem; Rust avoids it by having two types (Rc and Arc) that the developer can select from (and which the compiler will prevent you from using unsafely).
> the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex [...] C++’s shared pointer has the same problem
It doesn't. C++'s shared pointers use atomics, just like Rust's Arc does. There's no good reason (unless you have some very exotic requirements, into which I won't get into here) to implement shared pointers with mutexes. The implementation in the blog post here is just suboptimal.
(But it's true that C++ doesn't have Rust's equivalent of Rc, which means that if you just need a reference counted pointer then using std::shared_ptr is not a zero cost abstraction.)
I think that's an orthogonal issue. It's not that C++'s shared pointer is not a zero cost abstraction (it's as much a zero cost abstraction as in Rust), but that it only provides one type of a shared pointer.
But I suppose we're wasting time on useless nitpicking. So, fair enough.
I think they’re one and the same: C++ doesn’t have program-level thread safety by construction, so primitives like shared pointers need to be defensive by default instead of letting the user pick the right properties for their use case.
Edit: in other words C++ could provide an equivalent of Rc, but we’d see no end of people complaining when they shoot themselves in the foot with it.
(This is what “zero cost abstraction” means: it doesn’t mean no cost, just that the abstraction’s cost is no greater than the semantically equivalent version written by the user. So both Arc and shared_ptr are zero-cost in a MT setting, but only Rust has a zero-cost abstraction in a single-threaded setting.)
I can't say I agree with this? If C++ had an Rc equivalent (or if you'd write one yourself) it would be just as zero cost as it is in Rust, both in a single-threaded setting and in a multithreaded-setting. "Zero cost abstraction" doesn't mean that it cannot be misused or that it doesn't have any cognitive overhead to use correctly, just that it matches whatever you'd write without the abstraction in place. Plenty of "zero cost" features in C++ still need to you pay attention to not accidentally blow you leg off.
Simply put, just as a `unique_ptr` (`Box`) is an entirely different abstraction than `shared_ptr` (`Arc`), an `Rc` is also an entirely different abstraction than `Arc`, and C++ simply happens to completely lack `Rc` (at least in the standard; Boost of course has one). But if it had one you could use it with exactly the same cost as in Rust, you'd just have to manually make sure to not use it across threads (which indeed is easier said than done, which is why it's not in the standard), exactly the same as if you'd manually maintain the reference count without the nice(er) abstraction. Hence "zero cost abstraction".
Sorry, I realized I’m mixing two things in a confusing way: you’re right that C++ could easily have a standard zero-cost Rc equivalent; I’m saying that it can’t have a safe one. I think this is relevant given the weight OP gives to both performance and safety.
The primary exotic thing I can imagine is an architecture lacking the ability to do atomic operations. But even in that case, C11 has atomic operations [1] built in. So worst case, the C library for the target architecture would likely boil down to mutex operations.
Well, basically, yeah, if your platform lacks support for atomics, or if you'd need some extra functionality around the shared pointer like e.g. logging the shared pointer refcounts while enforcing consistent ordering of logs (which can be useful if you're unfortunate enough to have to debug a race condition where you need to pay attention to refcounts, assuming the extra mutex won't make your heisenbug disappear), or synchronizing something else along with the refcount (basically a "fat", custom shared pointer that does more than just shared-pointering).
Does there exist any platform which has multithreading but not atomics? Such a platform would be quite impractical as you can't really implement locks or any other threading primitive without atomics.
> Does there exist any platform which has multithreading but not atomics?
Yes. Also, almost every platform I know that supports multi threading and atomics doesn’t support atomics between /all/ possible masters. Consider a microcontroller with, say, two Arm cores (multithreaded, atomic-supporting) and a DMA engine.
Certainly such systems can pretty readily exist. You merely need atomic reads/writes in order to implement locks.
You can't create userspace locks which is a bummer, but the OS has the capability of enforcing locks. That's basically how early locking worked.
The main thing needed to make a correct lock is interrupt protection. Something every OS has.
To go fast, you need atomic operations. It especially becomes important if you are dealing with multiple cores. However, for a single core system atomics aren't needed for the OS to create locks.
I wrote "multithreaded" but I really meant "multicore". If two cores are contending for a lock I don't see how irq protection help. As long as there is only one core, I agree.
AFIAK, and I'm not MIPS expert, but I believe it doesn't have the ability to add a value directly to a memory address. You have to do something like
// Not real MIPS, just what I've gleaned from a brief look at some docs
LOAD addr, register
ADD 1, register
STORE register, addr
The LOAD and STORE are atomic, but the `ADD` happens out of band.
That's a problem if any sort of interrupt happens (if you are multi-threading then a possibility). If it happens at the load, then a separate thread can update "addr" which mean the later STORE will stomp on what's there.
x86 and ARM can do
ADD 1, addr
as well as other instructions like "compare and swap"
LOAD addr, register
MOV register, register2
ADD 1, register2
COMPARE_AND_SWAP addr, register, register2
if (cas_failed) { try again }
On MIPS you can simulate atomics with a load-linked/store-conditional (LL/SC) loop. If another processor has changed the same address between the LL and SC instructions, the SC fails to store the result and you have to retry. The underlying idea is that the processors would have to communicate memory accesses to each other via the cache coherence protocol anyway, so they can easily detect conflicting writes between the LL and SC instructions. It gets more complicated with out-of-order execution...
Unfortunately, for C++, thats not true. At least with glibc and libstdc++, if you do not link with pthreads, then shared pointers are not thread-safe. At runtime it will do a symbol lookup for a pthreads symbol, and based off the result, the shared pointer code will either take the atomic or non-atomic path.
I'd much rather it didnt try to be zero-cost and it always used atomics...
> Intentionally or not, this post demonstrates one of the things that makes safer abstractions in C less desirable: the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex, which means it’s (1) not cross platform, and (2) pays the mutex overhead even in provably single-threaded contexts. In other words, it’s not a zero-cost abstraction.
It's an implementation detail. They could have used atomic load/store (since c11) to implement the increment/decrement.
TBH I'm not sure what a mutex buys you in this situation (reference counting)
The number of times I might want to write something in C and have it less likely to crash absolutely dwarfs the number of times I care about that code being cross-platform.
Sure, cross-platform is desirable, if there's no cost involved, and mandatory if you actually need it, but it's a "nice to have" most of the time, not a "needs this".
As for mutex overheads, yep, that's annoying, but really, how annoying ? Modern CPUs are fast. Very very fast. Personally I'm far more likely to use an os_unfair_lock_t than a pthread_mutex_t (see the previous point) which minimizes the locking to a memory barrier, but even if locking were slow, I think I'd prefer safe.
Rust is, I'm sure, great. It's not something I'm personally interested in getting involved with, but it's not necessary for C (or even this extra header) to do everything that Rust can do, for it to be an improvement on what is available.
There's simply too much out there written in C to say "just use Rust, or Swift, or ..." - too many libraries, too many resources, too many tutorials, etc. You pays your money and takes your choice.
> As for mutex overheads, yep, that's annoying, but really, how annoying ?
For this use-case, you might not notice. ISTR, when examing the pthreads source code for some platform, that mutexes only do a context switch as a fallback, if the lock cannot be acquired.
So, for most use-cases of this header, you should not see any performance impact. You'll see some bloat, to be sure.
I'd think a POSIX mutex--a standard API that I not only could implement anywhere, but which has already been implemented all over the place--is way more "cross platform" than use of atomics.
To lift things up a level: I think a language’s abstractions have failed if we even need to have a conversation around what “cross platform” really means :-)
A recent superpower was added by Fil aka the pizlonator who made C more Fil-C with FUGC, a garbage collector with minimal adjustments to existing code, turning it into a memory safe implementation of the C and C++ programming languages you already know and love.
Because about 99% of the time the garbage collect is a negligible portion of your runtime at the benefit of a huge dollop of safety.
People really need to stop acting like a garbage collector is some sort of cosmic horror that automatically takes you back to 1980s performance or something. The cases where they are unsuitable are a minority, and a rather small one at that. If you happen to live in that minority, great, but it'd be helpful if those of you in that minority would speak as if you are in the small minority and not propagate the crazy idea that garbage collection comes with massive "performance penalties" unconditionally. They come with conditions, and rather tight conditions nowadays.
I think these threads attract people that write code for performance-critical use cases which explains the "cosmic horror" over pretty benign things. I agree though: most programs aren't going to be brought to their knees over some GC sweeps every so often.
Outside of hobbyist things, performance-critical code is the only responsible use case for a non-memory safe language like C in 2025, so of course it does. (Even that window is rapidly closing, though; languages like Rust and Swift can be better than C for perf-critical things because of the immutability guarantees.)
Whether or not GC is a negligible portion of your runtime is a characteristic of your program, not your implementation language. For 99% of programs, probably more, yes.
I have been working in GC languages for the last 25 years. The GC has been a performance problem for me... once. The modal experience for developers is probably zero. Once or twice is not that uncommon. But you shouldn't bend your entire implementation stack choice over "once or twice a career" outcomes.
This is not the only experience for developers, and there are those whose careers are concentrated in the places where it matters... databases, 100%-utilization network code, hardware drivers. But for 99% of the programs out there, whatever language they are implemented in, GC is not an important performance consideration. For the vast bulk of those programs, there is a much larger performance consideration in it that could be turned up in 5 minutes with a profiler and nobody has even bothered to do that and squeeze out the accidentally quadratic code because even that doesn't matter to them, let alone GC delays.
This is the "system programmer's" equivalent of the web dev's "I need a web framework that can push 2,000,000 requests per second" and then choosing the framework that can push 2,001,000 rps over the one that can push 2,000,000 because fast... when the code they are actually writing for the work they are actually doing can barely push 100 rps. Even game engines nowadays have rather quite a lot of GC in them. Even in a system programming language, and even in a program that is going to experience a great deal of load, you are going to have to budget some non-trivial optimization time to your own code before GC is your biggest problem, because the odds that you wrote something slower than the GC without realizing it is pretty high.
> Whether or not GC is a negligible portion of your runtime is a characteristic of your program, not your implementation language.
Of course, but how many developers choose C _because_ it does not have a GC vs developers who choose C# but then work around it with manual memory management and unsafe pointers? ....... It's > 1000 to 1
There are even new languages like C3, Odin, Zig or Jai that have a No-GC-mindset in the design. So why you people insist that deliberately unsafe languages suddenly need a GC? There a other new languages WITH a GC in mind. Like Go. Or pick Rust - no GC but still memory safe. So what's the problem again? Just pick the language you think fits best for a project.
There's plenty of application-level C and C++ code out there that isn't performance-critical, and would benefit from the safety a garbage collector provides.
For new projects, I just use Rust: there is zero reason to deal with a garbage collector today. If I'm in C, it's because I care about predictable performance, and why I'm not using Java for that particular project.
IDK about Fil-C, but in Java garbage collector actually speeds up memory management compared to C++ if you measure the throughput. The cost of this is increased worst-case latency.
A CLI tool (which most POSIX tools are) would pick throughput over latency any time.
This. The memory overhead kills you in large systems/OS-level GC. Reducing the working set size really matters in a complex system to keep things performant, and GC vastly expands the working set.
In the best cases, you’re losing a huge amount of performance vs. an equivalent non-GC system. In the worst, it affects interactive UI performance with multi-second stalls (a suitably modern GC shouldn’t do this, though).
I see this claim all the time without evidence, but it's also apples and oranges. In C++ you can avoid heap allocations so they are rare and large. In java you end up with non stop small heap allocations which is exactly what you try to avoid when you want a program to be fast.
Basically java gc is a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
This feels like a misrepresentation of features that actually matter for memory safety. Automatically freeing locals and bounds checking is unquestionably good, but it's only the very beginning.
The real problems start when you need to manage memory lifetimes across the whole program, not locally. Can you return `UniquePtr` from a function? Can you store a copy of `SharedPtr` somewhere without accidentally forgetting to increment the refcount? Who is responsible for managing the lifetimes of elements in intrusive linked lists? How do you know whether a method consumes a pointer argument or stores a copy to it somewhere?
I appreciate trying to write safer software, but we've always told people `#define xfree(p) do { free(p); p = NULL; } while (0)` is a bad pattern, and this post really feels like more of the same thing.
This is a great example of how ADTs can be implemented in C by emulating classes, despite the loss in brevity.
For the first item on reference counting, batched memory management is a possible alternative that still fits the C style. The use of something like an arena allocator approximates a memory lifetime, which can be a powerful safety tool. When you free the allocator, all pages are freed at once. Not only is this less error prone, but it can decrease performance. There’s no need to allocate and free each reference counted pointer, nor store reference counts, when one can free the entire allocator after argument parsing is done.
This also decreases fallible error handling: The callee doesn’t need to free anything because the allocator is owned by the caller.
Of course, the use of allocators does not make sense in every setting, but for common lifetimes such as: once per frame, the length of a specific algorithm, or even application scope, it’s an awesome tool!
It is surprisingly hard to find information about it, do you have any ? From what I can guess it's a new syntax but it's the feature itself is still an extension ?
The `[[attribute]]` syntax is new, the builtin ones in C23 are `[[deprecated]]`, `[[fallthrough]]`, `[[maybe_unused]]`, `[[nodiscard]]`, `[[noreturn]]`, `[[reproducible]]`, and `[[unsequenced]]`.
C++: "look at what others must do to mimic a fraction of my power"
This is cute, but also I'm baffled as to why you would want to use macros to emulate c++. Nothing is stopping you from writing c-like c++ if that's what you like style wise.
It's interesting to me to see how easily you can reach a much safer C without adding _everything_ from C++ as a toy project. I really enjoyed the read!
Though yes, you should probably just write C-like C++ at that point, and the result sum types used made me chuckle in that regard because they were added with C++17. This person REALLY wants modern CPP features..
> I'm baffled as to why you would want to use macros to emulate c++.
I like the power of destructors (auto cleanup) and templates (generic containers). But I also want a language that I can parse. Like, at all.
C is pretty easy to parse. Quite a few annoying corner cases, some context sensitive stuff, but still pretty workable. C++ on the other hand? It’s mostly pick a frontend or the highway.
No name mangling by default, far simpler toolchain, no dependence on libstdc++, compiles faster, usable with TCC/chibicc (i.e. much more amenable to custom tooling, be it at the level of a lexer, parser, or full compiler).
C’s simplicity can be frustrating, but it’s an extremely hackable language thanks to that simplicity. Once you opt in to C++, even nominally, you lose that.
Yup. And I like the implication that Rust is 'cross platform', when it's 'tier 1' support consists of 2 architectures (x86 & arm64). I guess we're converging on a world where those 2 + riscv are all that matter to most people, but it's not yet a world where they are all that matter to all people.
Nim is a language that compiles to C. So it is similar in principle to the "safe_c.h". We get power and speed of C, but in a safe and convenient language.
> It's finally, but for C
Nim has `finally` and `defer` statement that runs code at the end of scope, even if you raise.
> memory that automatically cleans itself up
Nim has ARC[1]:
"ARC is fully deterministic - the compiler automatically injects destructors when it deems that some variable is no longer needed. In this sense, it’s similar to C++ with its destructors (RAII)"
> automated reference counting
See above
> a type-safe, auto-growing vector.
Nim has sequences that are dynamically sized, type and bounds safe
> zero-cost, non-owning views
Nim has openarray, that is also "just a pointer and a length", unfortunately it's usage is limited to parameters.
But there is also an experimental view types feature[2]
> explicit, type-safe result
Nim has `Option[T]`[3] in standard library
> self-documenting contracts (requires and ensures)
Nim's assert returns message on raise: `assert(foo > 0, "Foo must be positive")`
> safe, bounds-checked operations
Nim has bounds-checking enabled by default (can be disabled)
> The UNLIKELY() macro tells the compiler which branches are cold, adding zero overhead in hot paths.
How can anyone be this interested in maintaining an annex k implementation when it's widely regarded as a design failure, specially the global constraint handler. There's a reason why most C toolchains don't support it.
> Maybe because it came from Microsoft, NIH syndrome.
No it is because you still need to get the size calculation correct, so it doesn't actually have any benefit over the strn... family other than being different.
Also a memcpy that can fail at runtime, seems to be only complicating things. If anything it should fail at compile time.
FWIW, it's heavily used inside Microsoft and is actually pretty nice when combined with all the static analysis tools that are mandatory parts of the dev cycle.
Nice, but if the intention is portability my experience has unfortunately been that you pretty much have to stick to C99. MSVC’s C compiler is rough, but pretty much necessary for actual cross platform. I have my own such header which has many, many things like the OP’s. As much as I would find it constantly useful, I don’t have a cleanup utility because of this.
But if you can stay out of MSVC world, awesome! You can do so much with a few preprocessor blocks in a header
That's the nice thing about macros, you can also have the macro generate C++ code using destructors instead of using the cleanup attribute. As long as your other C code is also valid C++ code, it should work.
> -mabi=name Generate code for the specified calling convention. [...] The default is to use the Microsoft ABI when targeting Microsoft Windows and the SysV ABI on all other systems.
> -mms-bitfields Enable/disable bit-field layout compatible with the native Microsoft Windows compiler. [...] This option is enabled by default for Microsoft Windows targets.
(Not OP) The C++ ABI on Windows isn't compatible between g++ and MSVC, even though the C ABI is. Libraries using C linkage should work fine. MinGW-built programs link against the Microsoft C runtime (MSVCRT.DLL by default) which is itself MSVC-built, so linking MinGW programs to MSVC libraries has to work for anything to work.
MSVC is a C++ compiler toolchain and it does not contain any JavaScript. You're thinking of VSCode, probably, but your comment was an off-topic rant either way.
Does the StringView/Span implementation here seem lacking? If the underlying data goes away, wouldn't the pointer now point to an invalid freed location, because it doesn't track the underlying data in any way?
Given how C was seen in the past, before there was a change of heart to add C11/C17, minus atomics and aligned memory allocators (still between experimental or not going to happen),
Fil-C essentially lifts C onto a managed, garbage-collected runtime. This is a small header that adds some C++ features to C.
(These features are still essentially unsafe: the unique pointer implementation still permits UAF, for example, because nothing prevents another thread from holding the pointer and failing to observe that it has been freed.)
The problem with macro-laden C is that your code becomes foreign and opaque to others. You're building a new mini-language layer on top of the base language that only your codebase uses. This has been my experience with many large C projects: I see tons of macros used all over the place and I have no idea what they do unless I hunt down and understand each one of them.
Macros are simply a fact of life in any decent-sized C codebase. The Linux kernel has some good guidance to try to keep it from getting out of hand but it is just something you have to learn to deal with.
I think this can be fine if the header provides a clean abstraction with well-defined behaviour in C, effectively an EDSL. For an extreme example, it starts looking like a high-level language:
I feel like there might be some value in this header file for some projects, but this is exactly the wrong use case.
> In cgrep, parsing command-line options the old way is a breeding ground for CVEs and its bestiary. You have to remember to free the memory on every single exit path, difficult for the undisciplined.
No, no, no. Command line options that will exist the entire lifetime of the program are the quintessential case for not ever calling free() on them because it's a waste of time. There is absolutely no reason to spend processor cycles to carefully call free() on a bunch of individual resources when the program is about to exit and the OS will reclaim the entire process memory in one go much faster than your program can. You're creating complexity and making your program slower and there is literally no upside: this isn't a tradeoff, it's a bad practice.
I think that a blanket should/shouldn't recommendation for arenas isn't right. Arenas are a tradeoff:
Pros: preallocating one arena is likely faster than many smaller allocations.
Cons: preallocation is most effective if you can accurately predict usage for the arena; if you can't, then you either overshoot and allocate more memory than you need, or undershoot and have to reallocate which might be less performant than just allocating as-needed.
In short, if you're preallocating, I think decisions need to be made based on performance testing and the requirements of your program (is memory usage more important than speed?). If you aren't preallocating and just using arenas for to free in a group, then I'm going to say using an arena for stuff that is going to be freed by the OS at program exit is adding complexity for no benefit--it depends on your arena implementation (arenas aren't in the C standard to my knowledge).
In general, I'd be erring on the side of simplicity here and not using arenas for this by default--I'd only consider adding arenas if performance testing shows the program spending a lot of time in individual allocations. So I don't think a blanket recommendation for arenas is a good idea here.
EDIT: In case it's not obvious: note that I'm assuming that the reason you want to use an arena is to preallocate. If you're thinking that you're going to call free on the arena on program exit, that's just as pointless as calling free on a bunch of individual allocations on program exit. It MIGHT be faster, but doing pointless things faster is still not as good as not doing pointless things.
Nice toy. It works until it stops working. An experienced C developer would quickly find a bunch of corner cases where this just doesn't work.
Given how simple examples in this blog post are, I ask myself, why don't we already have something like that as a part of the standard instead of a bunch of one-off personal, bug-ridden implementations?
It's just, I'd rather play with my own toys instead of using someone else's toy. Especially since I don't think it would ever grow up to be something more than a toy.
For serious work, I'd use some widely used, well-maintained, and battle-tested library instead of my or someone else's toy.
Yeah, kids like to waste time to make C more safe or bring C++ features.
If you need them, use C++ or different language. Those examples make code look ugly and you are right, the corner cases.
If you need to cleanup stuff on early return paths, use goto.. Its nothing wrong with it, jump to end when you do all the cleanup and return.
Temporary buffers? if they arent big, dont be afraid to use static char buf[64];
No need to waste time for malloc() and free. They are big? preallocate early and reallocate or work on chunk sizes. Simple and effective.
My thoughts as well. The only thing I would be willing to use is the macro definition for __attribute__, but that is trivial. I use C, because I want manual memory handling, if I wouldn't want that I would use another language. And now I don't make copies when I want to have read access to some things, that is simply not at a problem. You simply pass non-owning pointers around.
In a function? That makes the function not-threadsafe and the function itself stateful. There are places, where you want this, but I would refrain from doing that in the general case.
God forbid we should make it easier to maintain the existing enormous C code base we’re saddled with, or give devs new optional ways to avoid specific footguns.
Goofy platform specific cleanup and smart pointer macros published in a brand new library would almost certainly not fly in almost any "existing enormous C code base". Also the industry has had a "new optional ways to avoid specific footguns" for decades, it's called using a memory safe language with a C ffi.
I meant the collective bulk of legacy C code running the world that we can’t just rewrite in Rust in a finite and reasonable amount of time (however much I’d be all on board with that if we could).
There are a million internal C apps that have to be tended and maintained, and I’m glad to see people giving those devs options. Yeah, I wish we (collectively) could just switch to something else. Until then, yay for easier upgrade alternatives!
I was also, in fact, referring to the bulk of legacy code bases that can't just be fully rewritten. Almost all good engineering is done incrementally, including the adoption of something like safe_c.h (I can hardly fathom the insanity of trying to migrate a million LOC+ of C to that library in a single go). I'm arguing that engineering effort would be better spent refactoring and rewriting the application in a fully safe language one small piece at a time.
I’m not sure I agree with that, especially if there were easy wins that could make the world less fragile with a much smaller intermediate effort, eg with something like FilC.
I wholeheartedly agree that a future of not-C is a much better long term goal than one of improved-C.
I consider code written in Frama-C as a verifiable C dialect, like SPARK is to Ada, rather than C proper. I find it funny how standard C is an undefined-behaviour minefield with few redeeming qualities, but it gets some of the best formal verification tools around.
The popular C compilers include a static analyzer and a runtime sanitizer. What features do you consider proper C? The C standard has always been about standardization of existing compilers, not about prescribing features.
By "static analysis" you mean unsound, best-effort analyzers which try to study code as-is, rarely allow extra annotations, and tolerate false negatives and even positives by design.
While these are a huge improvement over no extra tooling, they don't compare to analyzers like Frama-C plugins, which demand further annotations/proofs if necessary to show code is free of UB, and you can provide further to show your code is not just safe, but correct. Assuming one doesn't ship rejected code, the latter is pretty much its own language with much stronger guarantees, much like SPARK is to Ada.
I like sanitizers and other compiler-specific guarantees, they at least try to fill the gaps by giving proper semantics to UB. But the ones available for C are still insufficient, and some are very resource-heavy compared to just running safe code. I'm excited about Fil-C showing a path forward here.
Yes, I do. I know they are very different from real correctness verifiers, but it's not like the people only using the compiler has no way of preventing trivial UB bugs. UB also is really only a language concept and nobody is writing code for the abstract C machine.
Let's start with object construction. You think you're creating an object. The compiler thinks you're declaring a function.
Widget w(); // I made a widget, right? RIGHT?
Wrong. You just declared a function that takes no parameters and returns a Widget. The compiler looks at this line and thinks "Ah yes, clearly this person wants to forward-declare a function in the middle of their function body because that's a completely reasonable thing to do."
Let's say you wise up and try this:
Widget w(Widget()); // Surely THIS creates a widget from a temporary?
Nope! That's ALSO a function declaration. You just declared a function called w that takes a function pointer (which returns a Widget) as a parameter.
The "fix"? Widget w{}; (if you're in C++11 or later, and you like your initializers curly). Widget w = Widget(); (extra verbose). Widget w; (if your object has a default constructor, which it might not, who knows).
The behavior CHANGES depending on whether your Widget has an explicit constructor, a default constructor, a deleted constructor, or is aggregate-initializable. Each combination produces a different flavor of chaos.
--
So you've successfully constructed an object. Now let's talk about copy elision, where the language specification essentially shrugs and says "the compiler might copy your object, or it might not, we're not going to tell you."
Widget makeWidget() {
Widget w;
return w; // Does this copy? Maybe! Does it move? Perhaps! Does it do neither? Could be!
}
Pre-C++17, this was pure voodoo. The compiler was allowed to elide the copy, but not required to. So your carefully crafted copy constructor might run, or it might not. Your code's behavior was non-deterministic.
"But we have move semantics now!" Return Value Optimization (RVO) and Named Return Value Optimization (NRVO) are not guaranteed, depend on compiler optimization levels, and can be foiled by doing things as innocent as having multiple return statements or returning different local variables.
Widget makeWidget(bool flag) {
Widget w1;
Widget w2;
return flag ? w1 : w2; // NRVO has left the chat
}
Suddenly your moves matter again. Or do they? Did the compiler decide to be helpful today? Who knows! It's a surprise every time you change optimization flags!
--
C++11 blessed us with auto, the keyword that promises to save us from typing out std::vector<std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Widget>>>::iterator for the ten thousandth time. Most of the time, auto works fine. But it has opinions. Strong opinions. About const-ness and references that it won't tell you about until runtime when everything explodes.
std::vector<bool> v = {true, false};
auto x = v[0]; // x is not bool. x is std::vector<bool>::reference, a proxy object
x = false;
// v[0] is now... wait, what? Did that work? Maybe! If x hasn't been destroyed!
const std::string& getString();
auto s = getString(); // s is std::string (copy made), NOT const std::string&
You wanted a reference? Too bad! Auto decays it to a value. You need auto& or const auto& or auto&& (universal reference! another can of worms!) depending on your use case. The simple keyword auto has spawned a cottage industry of blog posts explaining when you need auto, auto&, const auto&, auto&&, decltype(auto), and the utterly cursed auto*.
Intentionally or not, this post demonstrates one of the things that makes safer abstractions in C less desirable: the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex, which means it’s (1) not cross platform, and (2) pays the mutex overhead even in provably single-threaded contexts. In other words, it’s not a zero-cost abstraction.
C++’s shared pointer has the same problem; Rust avoids it by having two types (Rc and Arc) that the developer can select from (and which the compiler will prevent you from using unsafely).
> the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex [...] C++’s shared pointer has the same problem
It doesn't. C++'s shared pointers use atomics, just like Rust's Arc does. There's no good reason (unless you have some very exotic requirements, into which I won't get into here) to implement shared pointers with mutexes. The implementation in the blog post here is just suboptimal.
(But it's true that C++ doesn't have Rust's equivalent of Rc, which means that if you just need a reference counted pointer then using std::shared_ptr is not a zero cost abstraction.)
To be clear, the “same problem” is that it’s not a zero-cost abstraction, not that it uses the same specific suboptimal approach as this blog post.
I think that's an orthogonal issue. It's not that C++'s shared pointer is not a zero cost abstraction (it's as much a zero cost abstraction as in Rust), but that it only provides one type of a shared pointer.
But I suppose we're wasting time on useless nitpicking. So, fair enough.
I think they’re one and the same: C++ doesn’t have program-level thread safety by construction, so primitives like shared pointers need to be defensive by default instead of letting the user pick the right properties for their use case.
Edit: in other words C++ could provide an equivalent of Rc, but we’d see no end of people complaining when they shoot themselves in the foot with it.
(This is what “zero cost abstraction” means: it doesn’t mean no cost, just that the abstraction’s cost is no greater than the semantically equivalent version written by the user. So both Arc and shared_ptr are zero-cost in a MT setting, but only Rust has a zero-cost abstraction in a single-threaded setting.)
I can't say I agree with this? If C++ had an Rc equivalent (or if you'd write one yourself) it would be just as zero cost as it is in Rust, both in a single-threaded setting and in a multithreaded-setting. "Zero cost abstraction" doesn't mean that it cannot be misused or that it doesn't have any cognitive overhead to use correctly, just that it matches whatever you'd write without the abstraction in place. Plenty of "zero cost" features in C++ still need to you pay attention to not accidentally blow you leg off.
Simply put, just as a `unique_ptr` (`Box`) is an entirely different abstraction than `shared_ptr` (`Arc`), an `Rc` is also an entirely different abstraction than `Arc`, and C++ simply happens to completely lack `Rc` (at least in the standard; Boost of course has one). But if it had one you could use it with exactly the same cost as in Rust, you'd just have to manually make sure to not use it across threads (which indeed is easier said than done, which is why it's not in the standard), exactly the same as if you'd manually maintain the reference count without the nice(er) abstraction. Hence "zero cost abstraction".
Sorry, I realized I’m mixing two things in a confusing way: you’re right that C++ could easily have a standard zero-cost Rc equivalent; I’m saying that it can’t have a safe one. I think this is relevant given the weight OP gives to both performance and safety.
> very exotic requirements
I'd be interested to know what you are thinking.
The primary exotic thing I can imagine is an architecture lacking the ability to do atomic operations. But even in that case, C11 has atomic operations [1] built in. So worst case, the C library for the target architecture would likely boil down to mutex operations.
[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/atomic.html
Well, basically, yeah, if your platform lacks support for atomics, or if you'd need some extra functionality around the shared pointer like e.g. logging the shared pointer refcounts while enforcing consistent ordering of logs (which can be useful if you're unfortunate enough to have to debug a race condition where you need to pay attention to refcounts, assuming the extra mutex won't make your heisenbug disappear), or synchronizing something else along with the refcount (basically a "fat", custom shared pointer that does more than just shared-pointering).
Does there exist any platform which has multithreading but not atomics? Such a platform would be quite impractical as you can't really implement locks or any other threading primitive without atomics.
> Does there exist any platform which has multithreading but not atomics?
Yes. Also, almost every platform I know that supports multi threading and atomics doesn’t support atomics between /all/ possible masters. Consider a microcontroller with, say, two Arm cores (multithreaded, atomic-supporting) and a DMA engine.
Certainly such systems can pretty readily exist. You merely need atomic reads/writes in order to implement locks.
You can't create userspace locks which is a bummer, but the OS has the capability of enforcing locks. That's basically how early locking worked.
The main thing needed to make a correct lock is interrupt protection. Something every OS has.
To go fast, you need atomic operations. It especially becomes important if you are dealing with multiple cores. However, for a single core system atomics aren't needed for the OS to create locks.
I wrote "multithreaded" but I really meant "multicore". If two cores are contending for a lock I don't see how irq protection help. As long as there is only one core, I agree.
On most multicore systems you can pin the IRQ handling to a single core. Pinning locking interrupts to a single core would be how you handle this.
Which platforms might that be? Even MIPS has atomics (at least pointer sized last i checked).
AFIAK, and I'm not MIPS expert, but I believe it doesn't have the ability to add a value directly to a memory address. You have to do something like
The LOAD and STORE are atomic, but the `ADD` happens out of band.That's a problem if any sort of interrupt happens (if you are multi-threading then a possibility). If it happens at the load, then a separate thread can update "addr" which mean the later STORE will stomp on what's there.
x86 and ARM can do
as well as other instructions like "compare and swap"On MIPS you can simulate atomics with a load-linked/store-conditional (LL/SC) loop. If another processor has changed the same address between the LL and SC instructions, the SC fails to store the result and you have to retry. The underlying idea is that the processors would have to communicate memory accesses to each other via the cache coherence protocol anyway, so they can easily detect conflicting writes between the LL and SC instructions. It gets more complicated with out-of-order execution...
Unfortunately, for C++, thats not true. At least with glibc and libstdc++, if you do not link with pthreads, then shared pointers are not thread-safe. At runtime it will do a symbol lookup for a pthreads symbol, and based off the result, the shared pointer code will either take the atomic or non-atomic path.
I'd much rather it didnt try to be zero-cost and it always used atomics...
This is, impressively, significantly worse than I realized!
> Intentionally or not, this post demonstrates one of the things that makes safer abstractions in C less desirable: the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex, which means it’s (1) not cross platform, and (2) pays the mutex overhead even in provably single-threaded contexts. In other words, it’s not a zero-cost abstraction.
It's an implementation detail. They could have used atomic load/store (since c11) to implement the increment/decrement.
TBH I'm not sure what a mutex buys you in this situation (reference counting)
C11 has a mutex API (threads.h), so why would it rely on POSIX? Are you sure it's not an runtime detail on one platform? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-threads-in-visual...
The shared-pointer implementation isn’t actually shown (i.e. shared_ptr_copy), and the SharedPtr type doesn’t use a pthread_mutex_t.
> the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex
Do you have a source for this? I couldn't find the implementation in TFA nor a link to safe_c.h
The number of times I might want to write something in C and have it less likely to crash absolutely dwarfs the number of times I care about that code being cross-platform.
Sure, cross-platform is desirable, if there's no cost involved, and mandatory if you actually need it, but it's a "nice to have" most of the time, not a "needs this".
As for mutex overheads, yep, that's annoying, but really, how annoying ? Modern CPUs are fast. Very very fast. Personally I'm far more likely to use an os_unfair_lock_t than a pthread_mutex_t (see the previous point) which minimizes the locking to a memory barrier, but even if locking were slow, I think I'd prefer safe.
Rust is, I'm sure, great. It's not something I'm personally interested in getting involved with, but it's not necessary for C (or even this extra header) to do everything that Rust can do, for it to be an improvement on what is available.
There's simply too much out there written in C to say "just use Rust, or Swift, or ..." - too many libraries, too many resources, too many tutorials, etc. You pays your money and takes your choice.
That’s all reasonable, but here’s one of the primary motivations from the post:
> We love its raw speed, its direct connection to the metal
If this is a strong motivating factor (versus, say, refactoring risk), then C’s lack of safe zero-cost abstractions is a valid concern.
> As for mutex overheads, yep, that's annoying, but really, how annoying ?
For this use-case, you might not notice. ISTR, when examing the pthreads source code for some platform, that mutexes only do a context switch as a fallback, if the lock cannot be acquired.
So, for most use-cases of this header, you should not see any performance impact. You'll see some bloat, to be sure.
I'd think a POSIX mutex--a standard API that I not only could implement anywhere, but which has already been implemented all over the place--is way more "cross platform" than use of atomics.
To lift things up a level: I think a language’s abstractions have failed if we even need to have a conversation around what “cross platform” really means :-)
A recent superpower was added by Fil aka the pizlonator who made C more Fil-C with FUGC, a garbage collector with minimal adjustments to existing code, turning it into a memory safe implementation of the C and C++ programming languages you already know and love.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45133938
https://fil-c.org/
Thank you so much for sharing this. I missed the HN post.
This is beautiful!
Why would I want to run a garbage collector and deal with it's performance penalties?
Because about 99% of the time the garbage collect is a negligible portion of your runtime at the benefit of a huge dollop of safety.
People really need to stop acting like a garbage collector is some sort of cosmic horror that automatically takes you back to 1980s performance or something. The cases where they are unsuitable are a minority, and a rather small one at that. If you happen to live in that minority, great, but it'd be helpful if those of you in that minority would speak as if you are in the small minority and not propagate the crazy idea that garbage collection comes with massive "performance penalties" unconditionally. They come with conditions, and rather tight conditions nowadays.
I think these threads attract people that write code for performance-critical use cases which explains the "cosmic horror" over pretty benign things. I agree though: most programs aren't going to be brought to their knees over some GC sweeps every so often.
Outside of hobbyist things, performance-critical code is the only responsible use case for a non-memory safe language like C in 2025, so of course it does. (Even that window is rapidly closing, though; languages like Rust and Swift can be better than C for perf-critical things because of the immutability guarantees.)
> Because about 99% of the time the garbage collect is a negligible portion of your runtime
In a system programming language?
Whether or not GC is a negligible portion of your runtime is a characteristic of your program, not your implementation language. For 99% of programs, probably more, yes.
I have been working in GC languages for the last 25 years. The GC has been a performance problem for me... once. The modal experience for developers is probably zero. Once or twice is not that uncommon. But you shouldn't bend your entire implementation stack choice over "once or twice a career" outcomes.
This is not the only experience for developers, and there are those whose careers are concentrated in the places where it matters... databases, 100%-utilization network code, hardware drivers. But for 99% of the programs out there, whatever language they are implemented in, GC is not an important performance consideration. For the vast bulk of those programs, there is a much larger performance consideration in it that could be turned up in 5 minutes with a profiler and nobody has even bothered to do that and squeeze out the accidentally quadratic code because even that doesn't matter to them, let alone GC delays.
This is the "system programmer's" equivalent of the web dev's "I need a web framework that can push 2,000,000 requests per second" and then choosing the framework that can push 2,001,000 rps over the one that can push 2,000,000 because fast... when the code they are actually writing for the work they are actually doing can barely push 100 rps. Even game engines nowadays have rather quite a lot of GC in them. Even in a system programming language, and even in a program that is going to experience a great deal of load, you are going to have to budget some non-trivial optimization time to your own code before GC is your biggest problem, because the odds that you wrote something slower than the GC without realizing it is pretty high.
> Whether or not GC is a negligible portion of your runtime is a characteristic of your program, not your implementation language.
Of course, but how many developers choose C _because_ it does not have a GC vs developers who choose C# but then work around it with manual memory management and unsafe pointers? ....... It's > 1000 to 1
There are even new languages like C3, Odin, Zig or Jai that have a No-GC-mindset in the design. So why you people insist that deliberately unsafe languages suddenly need a GC? There a other new languages WITH a GC in mind. Like Go. Or pick Rust - no GC but still memory safe. So what's the problem again? Just pick the language you think fits best for a project.
There's plenty of application-level C and C++ code out there that isn't performance-critical, and would benefit from the safety a garbage collector provides.
Yes, plenty have been done already so since Lisp Machines, Smalltalk, Interlisp-D, Cedar, Oberon, Sing#, Modula-2+, Modula-3, D, Swift,....
It is a matter to have an open mindset.
Eventually system languages with manual memory management will be done history in agentic driven OSes.
Swift, by design, does not have GC.
Chapter 5,
https://gchandbook.org/contents.html
It would help if all naysayers had their CS skills up to date.
RC is a GC method and the least efficient one.
For new projects, I just use Rust: there is zero reason to deal with a garbage collector today. If I'm in C, it's because I care about predictable performance, and why I'm not using Java for that particular project.
https://docs.rs/gc/latest/gc/
Not really sure what relevance a third party library has when discussing the language characteristics.
I don't understand. This is an optional part of Rust. I'm obviously not using a garbage collector in Rust.
IDK about Fil-C, but in Java garbage collector actually speeds up memory management compared to C++ if you measure the throughput. The cost of this is increased worst-case latency.
A CLI tool (which most POSIX tools are) would pick throughput over latency any time.
You also pay for the increased throughput with significant memory overhead, in addition to worst-case latency.
This. The memory overhead kills you in large systems/OS-level GC. Reducing the working set size really matters in a complex system to keep things performant, and GC vastly expands the working set.
In the best cases, you’re losing a huge amount of performance vs. an equivalent non-GC system. In the worst, it affects interactive UI performance with multi-second stalls (a suitably modern GC shouldn’t do this, though).
> in Java garbage collector actually speeds up memory management compared to C++ if you measure the throughput
If I had a dollar for every time somebody repeated this without real-world benchmarks to back it up...
Java (w/ the JIT warmed up) could possibly be faster than C++, if the C++ program were to allocate every single value on the heap.
But you're never going to encounter a C++ program that does that, since it makes no sense.
I see this claim all the time without evidence, but it's also apples and oranges. In C++ you can avoid heap allocations so they are rare and large. In java you end up with non stop small heap allocations which is exactly what you try to avoid when you want a program to be fast.
Basically java gc is a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
Easy: because in your specific use-case, it's worth trading some performance for the added safety.
If I'm in C, I'm using JNI to work around the garbage collector of Kava
Have you ever measured the performance impact of JNI? :-)
Seems like someone should invent C+, which would be C but with the reasonable safety guardrails that C++ implemented in the last 10/20 years.
This feels like a misrepresentation of features that actually matter for memory safety. Automatically freeing locals and bounds checking is unquestionably good, but it's only the very beginning.
The real problems start when you need to manage memory lifetimes across the whole program, not locally. Can you return `UniquePtr` from a function? Can you store a copy of `SharedPtr` somewhere without accidentally forgetting to increment the refcount? Who is responsible for managing the lifetimes of elements in intrusive linked lists? How do you know whether a method consumes a pointer argument or stores a copy to it somewhere?
I appreciate trying to write safer software, but we've always told people `#define xfree(p) do { free(p); p = NULL; } while (0)` is a bad pattern, and this post really feels like more of the same thing.
This is a great example of how ADTs can be implemented in C by emulating classes, despite the loss in brevity.
For the first item on reference counting, batched memory management is a possible alternative that still fits the C style. The use of something like an arena allocator approximates a memory lifetime, which can be a powerful safety tool. When you free the allocator, all pages are freed at once. Not only is this less error prone, but it can decrease performance. There’s no need to allocate and free each reference counted pointer, nor store reference counts, when one can free the entire allocator after argument parsing is done.
This also decreases fallible error handling: The callee doesn’t need to free anything because the allocator is owned by the caller.
Of course, the use of allocators does not make sense in every setting, but for common lifetimes such as: once per frame, the length of a specific algorithm, or even application scope, it’s an awesome tool!
> C23 gave us [[cleanup]] attributes
C23 didn't introduce it, it's still a GCC extension that needs to be spelled as [[gnu::cleanup()]] https://godbolt.org/z/Gsz9hs7TE
It is surprisingly hard to find information about it, do you have any ? From what I can guess it's a new syntax but it's the feature itself is still an extension ?
[[ ]] attributes were added in C++11 and later C23. There are 7 standard(C32) attributes but GCC has hundreds of them.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/attributes.html
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Attributes.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Variable-Attribute...
The `[[attribute]]` syntax is new, the builtin ones in C23 are `[[deprecated]]`, `[[fallthrough]]`, `[[maybe_unused]]`, `[[nodiscard]]`, `[[noreturn]]`, `[[reproducible]]`, and `[[unsequenced]]`.
The feature itself is probably still __attribute__((cleanup(f))). That’s documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Variable-Attribute...
C++: "look at what others must do to mimic a fraction of my power"
This is cute, but also I'm baffled as to why you would want to use macros to emulate c++. Nothing is stopping you from writing c-like c++ if that's what you like style wise.
It's interesting to me to see how easily you can reach a much safer C without adding _everything_ from C++ as a toy project. I really enjoyed the read!
Though yes, you should probably just write C-like C++ at that point, and the result sum types used made me chuckle in that regard because they were added with C++17. This person REALLY wants modern CPP features..
> I'm baffled as to why you would want to use macros to emulate c++.
I like the power of destructors (auto cleanup) and templates (generic containers). But I also want a language that I can parse. Like, at all.
C is pretty easy to parse. Quite a few annoying corner cases, some context sensitive stuff, but still pretty workable. C++ on the other hand? It’s mostly pick a frontend or the highway.
There was a language called clay that was C compatible but had move semantics, destructors, templates and operator overloading.
No name mangling by default, far simpler toolchain, no dependence on libstdc++, compiles faster, usable with TCC/chibicc (i.e. much more amenable to custom tooling, be it at the level of a lexer, parser, or full compiler).
C’s simplicity can be frustrating, but it’s an extremely hackable language thanks to that simplicity. Once you opt in to C++, even nominally, you lose that.
Perhaps but a project using this stops you from writing any old C++ in your C. Writing C++ in a C style has no such protection.
It's choosing which features are allowed in.
>Nothing is stopping you from writing c-like c++ if that's what you like style wise.
You'll just have to get used to the C++ community screaming at you that it's the wrong way to write C++ and that you should just use Go or Zig instead
Embedded CPU vendors not shipping C++ compilers is what usually stops people.
Yup. And I like the implication that Rust is 'cross platform', when it's 'tier 1' support consists of 2 architectures (x86 & arm64). I guess we're converging on a world where those 2 + riscv are all that matter to most people, but it's not yet a world where they are all that matter to all people.
[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/rustc/platform-support.html
You can get all of that and more with Nim[0].
Nim is a language that compiles to C. So it is similar in principle to the "safe_c.h". We get power and speed of C, but in a safe and convenient language.
> It's finally, but for C
Nim has `finally` and `defer` statement that runs code at the end of scope, even if you raise.
> memory that automatically cleans itself up
Nim has ARC[1]:
"ARC is fully deterministic - the compiler automatically injects destructors when it deems that some variable is no longer needed. In this sense, it’s similar to C++ with its destructors (RAII)"
> automated reference counting
See above
> a type-safe, auto-growing vector.
Nim has sequences that are dynamically sized, type and bounds safe
> zero-cost, non-owning views
Nim has openarray, that is also "just a pointer and a length", unfortunately it's usage is limited to parameters. But there is also an experimental view types feature[2]
> explicit, type-safe result
Nim has `Option[T]`[3] in standard library
> self-documenting contracts (requires and ensures)
Nim's assert returns message on raise: `assert(foo > 0, "Foo must be positive")`
> safe, bounds-checked operations
Nim has bounds-checking enabled by default (can be disabled)
> The UNLIKELY() macro tells the compiler which branches are cold, adding zero overhead in hot paths.
Nim has likely / unlikely template[4]
------------------------------------------------------------
[0] https://nim-lang.org
[1] https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/10/15/introduction-to-arc-orc...
[2] https://nim-lang.org/docs/manual_experimental.html#view-type...
[3] https://nim-lang.org/docs/options.htm
[4] https://nim-lang.org/docs/system.html#likely.t%2Cbool
The post mentions cgrep several times, but I don't see a link to the code. Is it available somewhere?
Github has several repositories named cgrep, but the first results are written in other languages than C (Haskell, Python, Typescript, Java, etc).
yes, it is frustrating. I also am not quite sure what he is referencing and would be interested in trying out cgrep for myself.
Just don't mix that up with the real safec.h header from safeclib:
https://github.com/rurban/safeclib/tree/master/include
How can anyone be this interested in maintaining an annex k implementation when it's widely regarded as a design failure, specially the global constraint handler. There's a reason why most C toolchains don't support it.
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm
It's only regarded as design failure by the linux folks. Maybe because it came from Microsoft, NIH syndrome.
A global constraint handler is still by far better than dynamic env handlers, and most of the existing libc/POSIX design failures.
You can disable this global constraint handler btw.
> Maybe because it came from Microsoft, NIH syndrome.
No it is because you still need to get the size calculation correct, so it doesn't actually have any benefit over the strn... family other than being different.
Also a memcpy that can fail at runtime, seems to be only complicating things. If anything it should fail at compile time.
FWIW, it's heavily used inside Microsoft and is actually pretty nice when combined with all the static analysis tools that are mandatory parts of the dev cycle.
Nice, but if the intention is portability my experience has unfortunately been that you pretty much have to stick to C99. MSVC’s C compiler is rough, but pretty much necessary for actual cross platform. I have my own such header which has many, many things like the OP’s. As much as I would find it constantly useful, I don’t have a cleanup utility because of this.
But if you can stay out of MSVC world, awesome! You can do so much with a few preprocessor blocks in a header
That's the nice thing about macros, you can also have the macro generate C++ code using destructors instead of using the cleanup attribute. As long as your other C code is also valid C++ code, it should work.
You can use GCC on MS Windows just fine. Installing MSYS2 will also give you a package manager.
Yes, of course. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to link to Windows binaries and therefore need to compile against the Windows ABI.
From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html
> -mabi=name Generate code for the specified calling convention. [...] The default is to use the Microsoft ABI when targeting Microsoft Windows and the SysV ABI on all other systems.
> -mms-bitfields Enable/disable bit-field layout compatible with the native Microsoft Windows compiler. [...] This option is enabled by default for Microsoft Windows targets.
Doesn't this work in practice, due to bugs?
(Not OP) The C++ ABI on Windows isn't compatible between g++ and MSVC, even though the C ABI is. Libraries using C linkage should work fine. MinGW-built programs link against the Microsoft C runtime (MSVCRT.DLL by default) which is itself MSVC-built, so linking MinGW programs to MSVC libraries has to work for anything to work.
MSVC now supports C17.
Does it support C99 with VLAs yet?
MSVC is also made out of a dozen javascript processes which makes typing text need a beefy computer.
MSVC is a C++ compiler toolchain and it does not contain any JavaScript. You're thinking of VSCode, probably, but your comment was an off-topic rant either way.
Does the StringView/Span implementation here seem lacking? If the underlying data goes away, wouldn't the pointer now point to an invalid freed location, because it doesn't track the underlying data in any way?
This reminds me that Scott Meyers (IMO rightfully) considered the destructor as the single most important fearure in C++.
I too enjoy space leaks on recursion
Any hopes that MSVC will add C23 support before 2040?
If you interpret 23 as hex, that's only five years after the year, which isn't too bad!
I suppose it makes sense that every version that came after "c++0x" should be interpreted in hex.
Given how C was seen in the past, before there was a change of heart to add C11/C17, minus atomics and aligned memory allocators (still between experimental or not going to happen),
https://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-an...
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-atomics-in-visual...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/comp...
And the new guidelines regarding the use of unsafe languages at Microsoft, I wouldn't bet waiting that it will ever happen, even after 2040.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-azure-secur...
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2024/11/19/windo...
Well, with the death of Xbox and release of raddebugger, maybe supporting VS/MSVC just isn't that important anymore. Good riddance.
People keep forgetting Microsoft is one of the biggest publishers in the market, given the number of owned studios.
The box under the TV is a tiny part of the picture that makes Microsoft Games Studios and related subsidiaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Gaming_studi...
If Microsoft really gets pissed due to SteamOS and Proton, there are quite a few titles Valve will be missing on.
https://github.com/EpicGamesExt/raddebugger
At first I read Radeberger, a German beer brand.
Will windows be relevant by 2040? I personally don’t think so.
Depends on how much Valve manages to get rid of Proton.
Bit of a random question on an article about C.
The article clearly states that the code only works on GCC and Clang, which leaves MSVC. Not sure how the question was random.
There are other C compilers.
I checked Fil-C out and it looks great. How is this different from Fil-C? Apart from the obvious LLVM stuff
Fil-C essentially lifts C onto a managed, garbage-collected runtime. This is a small header that adds some C++ features to C.
(These features are still essentially unsafe: the unique pointer implementation still permits UAF, for example, because nothing prevents another thread from holding the pointer and failing to observe that it has been freed.)
The problem with macro-laden C is that your code becomes foreign and opaque to others. You're building a new mini-language layer on top of the base language that only your codebase uses. This has been my experience with many large C projects: I see tons of macros used all over the place and I have no idea what they do unless I hunt down and understand each one of them.
Like the Linux kernel?
Macros are simply a fact of life in any decent-sized C codebase. The Linux kernel has some good guidance to try to keep it from getting out of hand but it is just something you have to learn to deal with.
Obligatory link to Bourne Shell source code. https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/cmd/sh...
Discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22191790
I think this can be fine if the header provides a clean abstraction with well-defined behaviour in C, effectively an EDSL. For an extreme example, it starts looking like a high-level language:
https://www.libcello.org/
I feel like there might be some value in this header file for some projects, but this is exactly the wrong use case.
> In cgrep, parsing command-line options the old way is a breeding ground for CVEs and its bestiary. You have to remember to free the memory on every single exit path, difficult for the undisciplined.
No, no, no. Command line options that will exist the entire lifetime of the program are the quintessential case for not ever calling free() on them because it's a waste of time. There is absolutely no reason to spend processor cycles to carefully call free() on a bunch of individual resources when the program is about to exit and the OS will reclaim the entire process memory in one go much faster than your program can. You're creating complexity and making your program slower and there is literally no upside: this isn't a tradeoff, it's a bad practice.
shouldn't be individually allocated either, arenas for the win
I think that a blanket should/shouldn't recommendation for arenas isn't right. Arenas are a tradeoff:
Pros: preallocating one arena is likely faster than many smaller allocations.
Cons: preallocation is most effective if you can accurately predict usage for the arena; if you can't, then you either overshoot and allocate more memory than you need, or undershoot and have to reallocate which might be less performant than just allocating as-needed.
In short, if you're preallocating, I think decisions need to be made based on performance testing and the requirements of your program (is memory usage more important than speed?). If you aren't preallocating and just using arenas for to free in a group, then I'm going to say using an arena for stuff that is going to be freed by the OS at program exit is adding complexity for no benefit--it depends on your arena implementation (arenas aren't in the C standard to my knowledge).
In general, I'd be erring on the side of simplicity here and not using arenas for this by default--I'd only consider adding arenas if performance testing shows the program spending a lot of time in individual allocations. So I don't think a blanket recommendation for arenas is a good idea here.
EDIT: In case it's not obvious: note that I'm assuming that the reason you want to use an arena is to preallocate. If you're thinking that you're going to call free on the arena on program exit, that's just as pointless as calling free on a bunch of individual allocations on program exit. It MIGHT be faster, but doing pointless things faster is still not as good as not doing pointless things.
[dead]
This feels AI-generated.
Guarding builtin_expect with __GNUC__ instead of has_builtin might be what you find in elderly codebases that were fed into an llm
Nice toy. It works until it stops working. An experienced C developer would quickly find a bunch of corner cases where this just doesn't work.
Given how simple examples in this blog post are, I ask myself, why don't we already have something like that as a part of the standard instead of a bunch of one-off personal, bug-ridden implementations?
It would be a lot more constructive if you reported a bunch of corner cases where this doesn't work rather than just dismissing this as a toy.
No, I don't dismiss anything.
It's just, I'd rather play with my own toys instead of using someone else's toy. Especially since I don't think it would ever grow up to be something more than a toy.
For serious work, I'd use some widely used, well-maintained, and battle-tested library instead of my or someone else's toy.
Yeah, kids like to waste time to make C more safe or bring C++ features. If you need them, use C++ or different language. Those examples make code look ugly and you are right, the corner cases.
If you need to cleanup stuff on early return paths, use goto.. Its nothing wrong with it, jump to end when you do all the cleanup and return. Temporary buffers? if they arent big, dont be afraid to use static char buf[64]; No need to waste time for malloc() and free. They are big? preallocate early and reallocate or work on chunk sizes. Simple and effective.
> use goto
My thoughts as well. The only thing I would be willing to use is the macro definition for __attribute__, but that is trivial. I use C, because I want manual memory handling, if I wouldn't want that I would use another language. And now I don't make copies when I want to have read access to some things, that is simply not at a problem. You simply pass non-owning pointers around.
Can you share such a corner case?
> static char buf[64];
In a function? That makes the function not-threadsafe and the function itself stateful. There are places, where you want this, but I would refrain from doing that in the general case.
God forbid we should make it easier to maintain the existing enormous C code base we’re saddled with, or give devs new optional ways to avoid specific footguns.
Goofy platform specific cleanup and smart pointer macros published in a brand new library would almost certainly not fly in almost any "existing enormous C code base". Also the industry has had a "new optional ways to avoid specific footguns" for decades, it's called using a memory safe language with a C ffi.
I meant the collective bulk of legacy C code running the world that we can’t just rewrite in Rust in a finite and reasonable amount of time (however much I’d be all on board with that if we could).
There are a million internal C apps that have to be tended and maintained, and I’m glad to see people giving those devs options. Yeah, I wish we (collectively) could just switch to something else. Until then, yay for easier upgrade alternatives!
I was also, in fact, referring to the bulk of legacy code bases that can't just be fully rewritten. Almost all good engineering is done incrementally, including the adoption of something like safe_c.h (I can hardly fathom the insanity of trying to migrate a million LOC+ of C to that library in a single go). I'm arguing that engineering effort would be better spent refactoring and rewriting the application in a fully safe language one small piece at a time.
I’m not sure I agree with that, especially if there were easy wins that could make the world less fragile with a much smaller intermediate effort, eg with something like FilC.
I wholeheartedly agree that a future of not-C is a much better long term goal than one of improved-C.
I don't understand this passion for turning C into what it's not...
Just don't use C for sending astronauts in space. Simple.
C wasn't designed to be safe, it was designed so you don't have to write in assembly.
Just a quick look through this and it just shows one thing: someone else's walled garden of hell.
> Just don't use C for sending astronauts in space
But do use C to control nuclear reactors https://list.cea.fr/en/page/frama-c/
It's a lot easier to catch errors of omission in C than it is to catch unintended implicit behavior in C++.
I consider code written in Frama-C as a verifiable C dialect, like SPARK is to Ada, rather than C proper. I find it funny how standard C is an undefined-behaviour minefield with few redeeming qualities, but it gets some of the best formal verification tools around.
The popular C compilers include a static analyzer and a runtime sanitizer. What features do you consider proper C? The C standard has always been about standardization of existing compilers, not about prescribing features.
By "static analysis" you mean unsound, best-effort analyzers which try to study code as-is, rarely allow extra annotations, and tolerate false negatives and even positives by design.
While these are a huge improvement over no extra tooling, they don't compare to analyzers like Frama-C plugins, which demand further annotations/proofs if necessary to show code is free of UB, and you can provide further to show your code is not just safe, but correct. Assuming one doesn't ship rejected code, the latter is pretty much its own language with much stronger guarantees, much like SPARK is to Ada.
I like sanitizers and other compiler-specific guarantees, they at least try to fill the gaps by giving proper semantics to UB. But the ones available for C are still insufficient, and some are very resource-heavy compared to just running safe code. I'm excited about Fil-C showing a path forward here.
Yes, I do. I know they are very different from real correctness verifiers, but it's not like the people only using the compiler has no way of preventing trivial UB bugs. UB also is really only a language concept and nobody is writing code for the abstract C machine.
> Just don't use C for sending astronauts in space. Simple.
Last time I checked, even SpaceX uses C to send astronauts to space...
Some C devs will make all kinds of crazy efforts only not to use C++.
C++ is edge case hell even for simple looking code
Not really, only in the mind of haters.
Let's start with object construction. You think you're creating an object. The compiler thinks you're declaring a function.
Wrong. You just declared a function that takes no parameters and returns a Widget. The compiler looks at this line and thinks "Ah yes, clearly this person wants to forward-declare a function in the middle of their function body because that's a completely reasonable thing to do."Let's say you wise up and try this:
Nope! That's ALSO a function declaration. You just declared a function called w that takes a function pointer (which returns a Widget) as a parameter.The "fix"? Widget w{}; (if you're in C++11 or later, and you like your initializers curly). Widget w = Widget(); (extra verbose). Widget w; (if your object has a default constructor, which it might not, who knows).
The behavior CHANGES depending on whether your Widget has an explicit constructor, a default constructor, a deleted constructor, or is aggregate-initializable. Each combination produces a different flavor of chaos.
--
So you've successfully constructed an object. Now let's talk about copy elision, where the language specification essentially shrugs and says "the compiler might copy your object, or it might not, we're not going to tell you."
Pre-C++17, this was pure voodoo. The compiler was allowed to elide the copy, but not required to. So your carefully crafted copy constructor might run, or it might not. Your code's behavior was non-deterministic."But we have move semantics now!" Return Value Optimization (RVO) and Named Return Value Optimization (NRVO) are not guaranteed, depend on compiler optimization levels, and can be foiled by doing things as innocent as having multiple return statements or returning different local variables.
Suddenly your moves matter again. Or do they? Did the compiler decide to be helpful today? Who knows! It's a surprise every time you change optimization flags!--
C++11 blessed us with auto, the keyword that promises to save us from typing out std::vector<std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Widget>>>::iterator for the ten thousandth time. Most of the time, auto works fine. But it has opinions. Strong opinions. About const-ness and references that it won't tell you about until runtime when everything explodes.
You wanted a reference? Too bad! Auto decays it to a value. You need auto& or const auto& or auto&& (universal reference! another can of worms!) depending on your use case. The simple keyword auto has spawned a cottage industry of blog posts explaining when you need auto, auto&, const auto&, auto&&, decltype(auto), and the utterly cursed auto*.I agree, if people just had refrained from building things in c/c++ that operated on data from across a security boundary we wouldn't be in this mess.
Actually C performs quite good in exactly that area.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950022400
And
https://hackaday.com/2024/02/10/the-usage-of-embedded-linux-...