URL
https://opencores.org/ocsvn/openrisc/openrisc/trunk
Subversion Repositories openrisc
[/] [openrisc/] [trunk/] [gnu-dev/] [or1k-gcc/] [gcc/] [README.Portability] - Rev 714
Go to most recent revision | Compare with Previous | Blame | View Log
Copyright (C) 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.This file is intended to contain a few notes about writing C codewithin GCC so that it compiles without error on the full range ofcompilers GCC needs to be able to compile on.The problem is that many ISO-standard constructs are not accepted byeither old or buggy compilers, and we keep getting bitten by them.This knowledge until know has been sparsely spread around, so Ithought I'd collect it in one useful place. Please add and correctany problems as you come across them.I'm going to start from a base of the ISO C90 standard, since that isprobably what most people code to naturally. Obviously usingconstructs introduced after that is not a good idea.For the complete coding style conventions used in GCC, please readhttp://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.htmlString literals---------------Irix6 "cc -n32" and OSF4 "cc" have problems with constant stringinitializers with parens around it, e.g.const char string[] = ("A string");This is unfortunate since this is what the GNU gettext macro N_produces. You need to find a different way to code it.Some compilers like MSVC++ have fairly low limits on the maximumlength of a string literal; 509 is the lowest we've come across. Youmay need to break up a long printf statement into many smaller ones.Empty macro arguments---------------------ISO C (6.8.3 in the 1990 standard) specifies the following:If (before argument substitution) any argument consists of nopreprocessing tokens, the behavior is undefined.This was relaxed by ISO C99, but some older compilers emit an error,so code like#define foo(x, y) x yfoo (bar, )needs to be coded in some other way.Avoid unnecessary test before free----------------------------------Since SunOS 4 stopped being a reasonable portability target,(which happened around 2007) there has been no need to guardagainst "free (NULL)". Thus, any guard like the followingconstitutes a redundant test:if (P)free (P);It is better to avoid the test.[*]Instead, simply free P, regardless of whether it is NULL.[*] However, if your profiling exposes a test like this in aperformance-critical loop, say where P is nearly always NULL, andthe cost of calling free on a NULL pointer would be prohibitivelyhigh, consider using __builtin_expect, e.g., like this:if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 0))free (ptr);Trigraphs---------You weren't going to use them anyway, but some otherwise ISO Ccompliant compilers do not accept trigraphs.Suffixes on Integer Constants-----------------------------You should never use a 'l' suffix on integer constants ('L' is fine),since it can easily be confused with the number '1'.Common Coding Pitfalls======================errno-----errno might be declared as a macro.Implicit int------------In C, the 'int' keyword can often be omitted from type declarations.For instance, you can writeunsigned variable;as shorthand forunsigned int variable;There are several places where this can cause trouble. First, suppose'variable' is a long; then you might think(unsigned) variablewould convert it to unsigned long. It does not. It converts tounsigned int. This mostly causes problems on 64-bit platforms, wherelong and int are not the same size.Second, if you write a function definition with no return type atall:operate (int a, int b){...}that function is expected to return int, *not* void. GCC will warnabout this.Implicit function declarations always have return type int. So if youcorrect the above definition tovoidoperate (int a, int b)...but operate() is called above its definition, you will get an errorabout a "type mismatch with previous implicit declaration". The cureis to prototype all functions at the top of the file, or in anappropriate header.Char vs unsigned char vs int----------------------------In C, unqualified 'char' may be either signed or unsigned; it is theimplementation's choice. When you are processing 7-bit ASCII, it doesnot matter. But when your program must handle arbitrary binary data,or fully 8-bit character sets, you have a problem. The most obviousissue is if you have a look-up table indexed by characters.For instance, the character '\341' in ISO Latin 1 is SMALL LETTER AWITH ACUTE ACCENT. In the proper locale, isalpha('\341') will betrue. But if you read '\341' from a file and store it in a plainchar, isalpha(c) may look up character 225, or it may look upcharacter -31. And the ctype table has no entry at offset -31, soyour program will crash. (If you're lucky.)It is wise to use unsigned char everywhere you possibly can. Thisavoids all these problems. Unfortunately, the routines in <string.h>take plain char arguments, so you have to remember to cast them backand forth - or avoid the use of strxxx() functions, which is probablya good idea anyway.Another common mistake is to use either char or unsigned char toreceive the result of getc() or related stdio functions. They mayreturn EOF, which is outside the range of values representable bychar. If you use char, some legal character value may be confusedwith EOF, such as '\377' (SMALL LETTER Y WITH UMLAUT, in Latin-1).The correct choice is int.A more subtle version of the same mistake might look like this:unsigned char pushback[NPUSHBACK];int pbidx;#define unget(c) (assert(pbidx < NPUSHBACK), pushback[pbidx++] = (c))#define get(c) (pbidx ? pushback[--pbidx] : getchar())...unget(EOF);which will mysteriously turn a pushed-back EOF into a SMALL LETTER YWITH UMLAUT.Other common pitfalls---------------------o Expecting 'plain' char to be either sign or unsigned extending.o Shifting an item by a negative amount or by greater than or equal tothe number of bits in a type (expecting shifts by 32 to be sensiblehas caused quite a number of bugs at least in the early days).o Expecting ints shifted right to be sign extended.o Modifying the same value twice within one sequence point.o Host vs. target floating point representation, including emitting NaNsand Infinities in a form that the assembler handles.o qsort being an unstable sort function (unstable in the sense thatmultiple items that sort the same may be sorted in different ordersby different qsort functions).o Passing incorrect types to fprintf and friends.o Adding a function declaration for a module declared in another file toa .c file instead of to a .h file.
Go to most recent revision | Compare with Previous | Blame | View Log
