Re: function prototype element ordering

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:24:04PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 19:25 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > [...]
> > Looking through what was written before[1] and through examples in the
> > source tree, I find the following categories:
> > 
> > 1- storage class: static extern inline __always_inline
> > 2- storage class attributes/hints/???: __init __cold
> > 3- return type: void *
> > 4- return type attributes: __must_check __noreturn __assume_aligned(n)
> > 5- function attributes: __attribute_const__ __malloc
> > 6- function argument attributes: __printf(n, m) __alloc_size(n)
> > 
> > Everyone seems to basically agree on:
> > 
> > [storage class] [return type] [return type attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...)
> > 
> > There is a lot of disagreement over where 5 and 6 should fit in above. And
> > there is a lot of confusion over 4 (mixed between before and after the
> > function name) and 2 (see below).
> > 
> > What's currently blocking me is that 6 cannot go after the function
> > (for definitions) because it angers GCC (see quoted bit above), but 5
> > can (e.g. __attribute_const__).
> > 
> > Another inconsistency seems to be 2 (mainly section markings like
> > __init). Sometimes it's after the storage class and sometimes after the
> > return type, but it certainly feels more like a storage class than a
> > return type attribute:
> > 
> > $ git grep 'static __init int' | wc -l
> > 349
> > $ git grep 'static int __init' | wc -l
> > 8402
> > 
> > But it's clearly positioned like a return type attribute in most of the
> > tree. What's correct?
> 
> Neither really.  'Correct' is such a difficult concept.
> 'Preferred' might be better.

Right -- I expect it to be a guideline.

> btw: there are about another 100 other uses with '__init' as the
> initial attribute, mostly in trace.

Hah, yeah.

> And I still think that return type attributes like __init, which is
> just a __section define, should go before the function storage class
> and ideally on a separate line to simplify the parsing of the actual
> function declaration.  Attributes like __section, __aligned, __cold,
> etc... don't have much value when looking up a function definition.
> 
> > Regardless, given the constraints above, it seems like what Linus may
> > want is (on "one line", though it will get wrapped in pathological cases
> > like kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace):
> 
> Pathological is pretty common these days as the function name length
> is rather longer now than earlier times.

Agreed!

> > [storage class] [storage class attributes] [return type] [return type attributes] [function argument attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...) [function attributes]
> > 
> > Joe appears to want (on two lines):
> > 
> > [storage class attributes] [function attributes] [function argument attributes]
> > [storage class] [return type] [return type attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...)
> 
> I would put [return type attributes] on the initial separate line
> even though that's not the most common use today.

I found a few other people wanting separate lines too, so at the risk of
annoying Linus, I guess I'll attempt this (again).

> > I would just like to have an arrangement that won't get NAKed by
> > someone. ;)
> 
> Bikeshed building dreamer...

I just want to know the right place to put stuff. :P

> But IMO the desire here is to ask for a bit more uniformity, not
> require it.

Yeah.

-- 
Kees Cook