[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:20:15 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New articles on ewontfix
* Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2013-07-05 11:54:11 -0400]:
> I'm still trying to determine how to work out a formal definition of
> library-safe. My thought is that it would be based on the property of
> being able to combine two programs with well-defined behavior, both
> using the library code, into a single program where each original
> program runs starting with its own initial thread, such that the
> combined program does not invoke UB and the two sub-programs match
> their behavior before being combined. However there are lots of ugly
> issues that have to be considered.
>
> With that done, the interesting part would be covering common failures
> of libraries to be library-safe.
i'm not sure if you can derive all the interesting failures from a
single definition
this definition covers multi-thread issues
i think library safety should also cover single thread issues
(abort in lib, unbounded resource usage, trusting input sources
unjustifiably, strong assumtions about the environment..)
and source code level issues
(abi, visibility, namespace pollution, clean headers..)
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.
