|
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 17:52:26 +0200 From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New articles on ewontfix 2013/7/7 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>: > On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> * 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 Lukasz Sowa (blowfish diff for musl) has prepared a very good tool for debugging multi-threaded applications. https://github.com/luksow/Coconut I hope that it will be useful in testing... Daniel
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.