[aaaashley]

Funny thing about that n[static M] array checking syntax–it was even considered bad in 1999, when it was included:

"There was a unanimous vote that the feature is ugly, and a good consensus that its incorporation into the standard at the 11th hour was an unfortunate decision." - Raymond Mak (Canada C Working Group), https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_205.htm

[jacquesm]

It wasn't considered bad, it was considered ugly and in the context given that is a major difference. The proposed alternative in that post to me is even more ugly so I would have agreed with the option that received the most support, to leave it as it was.

[moefh]

It was always considered bad not (just) because it's ugly, but because it hides potential problems and adds no safety at all: a `[static N]` parameter tells the compiler that the parameter will never be NULL, but the function can still be called with a NULL pointer anyway.

That's is the current state of both gcc and clang: they will both happily, without warnings, pass a NULL pointer to a function with a `[static N]` parameter, and then REMOVE ANY NULL CHECK from the function, because the argument can't possibly be NULL according to the function signature, so the check is obviously redundant.

See the example in [1]: note that in the assembly of `f1` the NULL check is removed, while it's present in the "unsafe" `f2`, making it actually safer.

Also note that gcc will at least tell you that the check in `f1()` is "useless" (yet no warning about `g()` calling it with a pointer that could be NULL), while clang sees nothing wrong at all.

[1] https://godbolt.org/z/ba6rxc8W5

[jacquesm]

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that and thought the compiler would at least throw up a warning if it had seen that function prototype.

[moefh]

It's not intuitive, although arguably conforms to the general C philosophy of not getting in the way unless the code has no chance of being right.

For example, both compilers do complain if you try to pass a literal NULL to `f1` (because that can't possibly be right), the same way they warn about division by a literal zero but give no warnings about dividing by a number that is not known to be nonzero.

[jacquesm]

Right, so if the value is known at compile time it will flag the error but if it only appears at runtime it will happily consume the null and wreak whatever havoc that will lead to further down the line. Ok, thank you for pointing this out, I must have held that misconception for a really long time.

[OneDeuxTriSeiGo]

Note that the point of [static N] and [N] is to enforce type safety for "internal code". Any external ABI facing code should not use it and arguably there should be a lint/warning for its usage across an untrusted interface.

Inside of a project that's all compiled together however it tends to work as expected. It's just that you must make sure your nullable pointers are being checked (which of course one can enforce with annotations in C).

TLDR: Explicit non-null pointers work just fine but you shouldn't be using them on external interfaces and if you are using them in general you should be annotating and/or explicitly checking your nullable pointers as soon as they cross your external interfaces.

[MobiusHorizons]

Wow, that’s crazy. Does anyone have any context on why they didn’t fix this by either disallowing NULL, or not treating the pointer as non-nullable? I’m assuming there is code that was expecting this not to error, but the combination really seems like a bug not just a sharp edge.

[int_19h]

Treating the pointer as not-nullable is precisely the point of the feature, though. By letting the compiler know that there's at least N elements there, it can do things like e.g. move that read around and even prefetch if that makes the most sense.

[jacquesm]

Indeed, at a minimum you should be able to enforce that check using a compiler flag.

[uecker]

You can add that check using -fsanitize=null (and you may want to turn the diagnostic into a run-time trap)