> int flex[] __attribute__((__element_count__(items)));
While what the article describes is clever, it is needlessly complex, and filled with various compiler switches and extensions.
In contrast, here's a stupid simple approach:
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html
where bounds-checkable arrays are declared as:
int a[..];
`a` consists of two fields, a `length` and a `pointer`. Indexing it means the compiler can (optionally) insert a bounds check it.
int s[..] = "string";
s[10] = 'x'; // fatal runtime error
We can turn a pointer into a bounds checked array by "slicing" it:
int *p = (int*) malloc(10);
int a[..] = p[0 .. 10];
A bounds checked array can be turned into a pointer:
int *p = &a[3]; // point to 3rd element of a[..]
That's all there is to it. No pages and pages of compiler switches and extensions.
Does it work? We've been doing that with D for over 20 years. Hell yeah, it works. It works fantastically well. It does not disturb any existing C code.
While what the article describes is clever, it is needlessly complex, and filled with various compiler switches and extensions.
In contrast, here's a stupid simple approach:
https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html
where bounds-checkable arrays are declared as:
`a` consists of two fields, a `length` and a `pointer`. Indexing it means the compiler can (optionally) insert a bounds check it. We can turn a pointer into a bounds checked array by "slicing" it: A bounds checked array can be turned into a pointer: That's all there is to it. No pages and pages of compiler switches and extensions.Does it work? We've been doing that with D for over 20 years. Hell yeah, it works. It works fantastically well. It does not disturb any existing C code.