Raymend Chen has probably forgotten more about programming than I'll ever know, but aren't the first two blah() function examples either missing a } or have a superfluous { after the else?
billforsternz 2 hours ago [-]
Yes. And in the second one he has return c; when he meant return b;
Homer nods.
Onavo 3 hours ago [-]
Post COVID software engineer grads probably won't understand this comment.
camkego 2 hours ago [-]
Why? Because of LLM vibe coding?
dataflow 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah. The next generation of software engineers is coming. Brace yourself.
burner420042 2 hours ago [-]
Instantly finding a missing semicolon or unbalanced parentheses on a screen of text.
Kids these days!
CodeArtisan 2 hours ago [-]
Until C23, you could declare a pointer to a procedure that takes an unspecified amount of any type arguments like this
If you compile with -std=c23, both gcc and clang will throw an error ( (*f)() is now the same as (*f)(void) )
AshamedCaptain 12 minutes ago [-]
You do not need the pointer at all. f() not specifying the arguments has been the case since forever. "Prototypes" (90s) are newer than C.
_kst_ 3 hours ago [-]
It's not even possible to pass too few arguments to a function in C unless you go out of your way to write bad code.
You can write a function declaration that's inconsistent with its definition in another translation unit. Declaring the function in a shared header file avoids this.
You can use an old-style declaration that doesn't specify what parameters a function expects. Don't do that. Use prototypes.
You can use a cast to convert a function pointer to an incompatible type, and call through the resulting pointer. Don't do that.
You can call a function with no visible declaration if your compiler overly permissive or is operating in pre-C99 mode. Don't do that.
userbinator 2 hours ago [-]
This is a site for intellectual curiosity, not pedantic dissmisal.
themafia 2 hours ago [-]
You could also use inline assembly.
charleslmunger 2 hours ago [-]
I had fun exploiting this to detect the falling convention used by some code at runtime - there were two different options depending on OS version; one passed a jnienv* as the first param, the other did not. So if I called it with 0, I could tell which was being used based on whether the first argument was NULL or not. Only used for specific architectures with a defined ABI that behaved this way, of course.
anitil 4 hours ago [-]
I had never considered the idea of passing too few register params so I didn't immediately think of the reuse problem. And I had no idea about Itanium's Not-a-thing bit! Always a good read from Raymond Chen.
LelouBil 2 hours ago [-]
Interesting that some CPUs have a calling convention "built-in"
hyperhello 3 hours ago [-]
Do you really not ‘pass’ register parameters? How can anyone tell if you didn’t?
Polizeiposaune 3 hours ago [-]
Read the post - not all architectures behave the same!
Itanic had variable-sized register windows, plus extra tag bits for NaT ("not a thing") placeholder values. If you didn't set one of the argument registers the callee might trap in unexpected ways when it touches the register garbage.
hyperhello 1 hours ago [-]
Heh, it had rotating register files too. VLIW was so weird.
rurban 2 hours ago [-]
Of which decade is this post? I cannot think of any modern architecture which still passes args on the stack.
Itanium? Stone age
jcranmer 2 hours ago [-]
If you have 29 arguments, I assure that you some of them are on the stack in nearly every architecture in use. Also, certain types as parameters also get passed on the stack (usually types larger than a register, or in C++ code, objects with nontrivial constructors or destructors).
rurban 30 minutes ago [-]
Sure, but he still came up with a 2005 blog post, and attached a 2026 to it. No optimizing C compiler cares for the 2nd arg, when it's a register anyway. And if the 1st is constant, the dead branch is folded away. So the 2nd arg is dead
9fwfj9r 2 hours ago [-]
I regard this yet another unintuitive Itanium quirk that makes it failed.
marlburrow 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 05:46:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Homer nods.
Kids these days!
If you compile with -std=c23, both gcc and clang will throw an error ( (*f)() is now the same as (*f)(void) )
You can write a function declaration that's inconsistent with its definition in another translation unit. Declaring the function in a shared header file avoids this.
You can use an old-style declaration that doesn't specify what parameters a function expects. Don't do that. Use prototypes.
You can use a cast to convert a function pointer to an incompatible type, and call through the resulting pointer. Don't do that.
You can call a function with no visible declaration if your compiler overly permissive or is operating in pre-C99 mode. Don't do that.
Itanic had variable-sized register windows, plus extra tag bits for NaT ("not a thing") placeholder values. If you didn't set one of the argument registers the callee might trap in unexpected ways when it touches the register garbage.
Itanium? Stone age