Consequences of passing too few register parameters to a C function

(devblogs.microsoft.com)

35 points | by aragonite 2 days ago

10 comments

  • CodeArtisan 15 minutes ago
    Until C23, you could declare a pointer to a procedure that takes an unspecified amount of any type arguments like this

        void foo( int (*f)() )
        {
            f(1);
            f(1, "2" , 3.0);
        }
    
    https://godbolt.org/z/s6e5rnqv9

    If you compile with -std=c23, both gcc and clang will throw an error ( (*f)() is now the same as (*f)(void) )

  • bananamogul 2 hours ago
    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 41 minutes ago
      Yes. And in the second one he has return c; when he meant return b;

      Homer nods.

    • Onavo 1 hour ago
      Post COVID software engineer grads probably won't understand this comment.
      • camkego 1 hour ago
        Why? Because of LLM vibe coding?
        • burner420042 55 minutes ago
          Instantly finding a missing semicolon or unbalanced parentheses on a screen of text.

          Kids these days!

  • charleslmunger 49 minutes 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.
  • _kst_ 1 hour 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 49 minutes ago
      This is a site for intellectual curiosity, not pedantic dissmisal.
    • themafia 36 minutes ago
      You could also use inline assembly.
  • rurban 1 hour 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 11 minutes 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).
  • LelouBil 58 minutes ago
    Interesting that some CPUs have a calling convention "built-in"
  • anitil 2 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.
  • hyperhello 1 hour ago
    Do you really not ‘pass’ register parameters? How can anyone tell if you didn’t?
    • Polizeiposaune 1 hour 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.

  • 9fwfj9r 1 hour ago
    I regard this yet another unintuitive Itanium quirk that makes it failed.
  • marlburrow 24 minutes ago
    [flagged]