ImportC and nothrow/@nogc?

[Manu]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 21:56, Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 11:40:06 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 21:31, Paolo Invernizzi via
> > Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 10:32:31 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 19:56, Paolo Invernizzi via
> >> > Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Saturday, 24 August 2024 at 17:43:38 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 03:31, Richard (Rikki) Andrew
> >> >> > Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> >> >> > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 25/08/2024 5:10 AM, Manu wrote:
> >> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've been considering something along these lines.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Specifically, ``@trusted`` does not mean the entire body
> >> >> >> shouldn't be verified. It just means that you are going
> >> >> >> to do something naughty that needs looking at.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So you need annotated scopes inside of it, to do the
> >> >> >> naughty thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just wrote a trusted function and call it: that's the sane
> >> >> way to do it and respect code reviewer hard job.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ...so, because I'm going to make one single unsafe function
> >> > call inside of some function, I should eject all other
> >> > related or unrelated safety checks for the entire
> >> > surrounding context?
> >>
> >> No, you should isolate the unsafe part of code into a
> >> function, explain why it’s unsafe, the intent of the code, the
> >> expected parameter values and the expected returns, so that
> >> reviewer can check that the interface is really memory safe.
> >>
> >> Then call this extremely simple function from the rest of safe
> >> code safe code.
> >>
> >>
> > So, this then:
> >
> > extern(C) int myUnsafeFunction(int x, int y);
> >
> > @trusted int myPointlessWrapper(int x, int y)
> > {
> >   return  myUnsafeFunction (x, y);
> > }
> >
> > @safe mySuperSafeFunction(...)
> > {
> >    //... lots of code
> >
> >   int r = myPointlessWrapper(arg1, arg2);
> >
> >   //... lots of code
> > }
> >
> > Brilliant.
>
> That’s sidestepping the problem from your side: there’s no
> explanation why myUnsafeFunction has an unsafe interface, under
> what condition it’s unsafe, and what it’s supposed to do. Neither
> any check that it’s parameters are valid and they are not turning
> into memory unsafety.
>
> A reviewer for sure will ask you to add that information and
> assurance about memory safety of calling myUnsadeFunction
>
> If the extern(C) function is intese memory safe, there should be
> a way to mark the declaration @safe, also with importC, and there
> we can reason about a solution.


I think you might have missed the point here... we're talking about calling
C libraries.
It already has its interface nicely presented and documented, with expected
arguments and returns all written out.
We just want to call a function, that's all. There's no safety 'risk' here
to comment on, unless you consider using a C library to be a risk in
principle.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20240825/14f9cec3/attachment.htm>