this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
77 points (96.4% liked)

Linux

10091 readers
700 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
77
The Linux Kernel Looks To "Bite The Bullet" In Enabling Microsoft C Extensions (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 3 days ago by cm0002@ttrpg.network to c/linux@programming.dev
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two patches queued into the Linux kernel's build system development tree, kbuild-next, would enable the -fms-extensions compiler argument everywhere for allowing GCC and LLVM/Clang to use the Microsoft C Extensions when compiling the Linux kernel. Being in kbuild-next these patches will likely be submitted for the Linux 6.19 kernel merge window next month but remains to be seen if there will be any last minute objections to this change.

The -fms-extensions compiler option honored by the GNU Compiler Collection and LLVM/Clang allow enabling some non-standard C/C++ constructs used within Microsoft header files and honored by the the Microsoft Visual C/C++ compiler. For Linux kernel development purposes, enabling the Microsoft C Extensions would allow including a tagged struct or union anonymously in another struct/union.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 22 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Why?

[–] entwine@programming.dev 72 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I'm sitting around doing IT shit waiting things to download/backup/install/etc and have nothing better to do, so here's an AI-free explanation with code samples:

It's basically just a code style thing. Standard C allows you to declare unnamed structs/unions within other structs/unions. They must be unnamed, so it'd look like this:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

Which is fine, but the -fms-extensions flag enables you to do the same thing with named structs. For example:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2 {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

without -fms-extensions, the above will compile, but won't do what you might assume. b and c will be members of struct test2, not test. So something like this won't compile:

struct test my_test;
my_test.b = 1; // error: ‘struct test’ has no member named ‘b’

But with the flag, not only does it work, it also lets you do some convenient things like this:

struct test2 {
        char b;
        float c;
};
struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2;
        double d;
};
//...
struct test my_test;
my_test.b = 1; //OK

That is, you can reuse an existing struct definition, which gives you a nice little tool to organize your code.

Source: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html

[–] DeltaWingDragon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's the point of this? If you have a struct within a struct, you probably want them to nest. The -fms-extensions will un-nest them, which is not what you mean.

// If I type this:
struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2 {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

struct test my_test;

// I want this to happen:
my_test.test2.b = 'x'; //assigning the members of the nested struct
my_test.test2.c = 3.141; //this will work
printf("%f", my_test.c); //this will NOT work since c is a property of test2
[–] entwine@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

You can already do that in standard C like this:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct {
                char b;
                float c;
        } test2;
        double d;
};

I can't think of any particular reason why you'd want an unnamed struct inside a struct, but you definitely would want to be able to have an unnamed struct inside a union. I suspect the struct-inside-struct thing can become useful in some scenarios involving unions.

[–] ijhoo@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If this is so convenient, why wasn't it made a part of a newer C standard?

[–] entwine@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago

It's not that convenient. I can't even think of a situation where this would be useful for structs, only unions. And in the case of unions, you usually want to keep them as small as possible (or better yet, avoid them altogether).

But besides that, C is a language that tends to prefer minimalism. Using macros, you can accomplish a similar thing already, even if it's not as nice.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 8 points 3 days ago

Nice, thank you

[–] UnityDevice@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago

Once in a while, it turns out that enabling -fms-extensions could allow some slightly prettier code. But every time it has come up, the code that had to be used instead has been deemed "not too awful" and not worth introducing another compiler flag for.

That's probably true for each individual case, but then it's somewhat of a chicken/egg situation.

If we just "bite the bullet" as Linus says and enable it once and for all, it is available whenever a use case turns up, and no individual case has to justify it.

A lore.kernel.org search provides these examples:

Undoubtedly, there are more places in the code where this could also be used but where -fms-extensions just didn't come up in any discussion.

Basically the extensions are useful sometimes. Note that they have nothing to do with Microsoft other than being invented by them.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

The "extend" phase of EEE.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 days ago

Some software require it sadly

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 days ago

Old languages should be able to learn new tricks.