Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:45:27 +0400 From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: musl as a framework to test applications' compatibility with POSIX (was: NULL) Hi, On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:11 -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > In any case, this thread has gotten WAY off-topic, going all over the > place into territory about the merits and demerits of different > languages and anti-FSF politics. Those topics may be worth discussing > in some contexts, but it seems to have left everybody really confused > about the issues at hand, which are: > > - whether we should work around broken programs that pass NULL to > variadic functions > > - and if so, how > > The emerging consensus seems to be using > > #define NULL 0L > > unconditionally in both C and C++ mode. If such slick and unobvious places of C/POSIX/C++/gcc/etc. applications are explicitly detected and handled, then probably it worth implementing some checker in libc/toolchain which is detected (probably at runtime) and warning is emitted at runtime/compile-time? gcc'isms, UBs, etc. In musl libc it can be implemented as -DI_WANT_TO_DETECT_GCCISMS. Thanks, -- Vasily Kulikov http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.