Comment by duped
3 years ago
Then require compilers implement it in the standard. I think it's really backwards to ignore the tool chain and its ability to prevent bugs from entering software.
It's stuff like this that leaves us writing C to rely on implementation defined behavior. Under specification that leaves easy holes to fill will be filled by the compiler and we will rely on them. Just like type punning.
This is the problem. Things get complicated fast. If we mandate null termination, then its impossible to have multiple embeds in a row to concatenate files, or we need some how to have rules for when to add null termination and not. These rules in turn are not going to be read by all users, so some people will just assume that embed always adds null terminate in when it doesn't and then we are back to square one. The more we add the more corner cases there are.
I don't see how that would prevent sequential embeds unless you have defined the semantics of embed to be a textual include, which if that's the case then the mistake are the semantics and not the constraints on compilers or embedded files.
edit: why is it desirable to concatenate files with #embed? Does that not seem out of scope if not contrived?
Why assume the data should be null terminated? Its an array with a known compile time size. Binary data often needs to include 0 / NULL.
This is literally the premise of this comment chain. Can you see how the standard can get dragged around by various competing needs? People want to embed strings, with null termination, some just want to embed binary data. Neither is particularly “wrong”. And in this thread everyone is presenting “obvious” solutions that are one or the other.
2 replies →
If you need 0 termination simply write