Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:19:42 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Subject: Re: C Annex K safe C functions

* Florian Weimer <> [2019-03-04 09:09:31 +0100]:
> * Rich Felker:
> > 5. Expanding on the topic of FUD/misinformation, both the introduction
> > of the original *_s functions, and lobbying for their inclusion in the
> > standard (which eventually reached the compromise of just putting them
> > in an Annex), was not about improving the C language or making useful
> > tools for programmers, but about introducing incompatibility and
> > fragmentation to the language/standard with the goal of undermining
> > it. The company that introduced it produces a product that is not
> > compatible with the C language as specified and does not even aim to
> > be, but aims to give the impression of being a C implementation (it's
> > mainly a C++ implementation, though likely not conforming to that
> > standard either).
> Does this really reflect history?  I thought that Annex K was submitted
> for standardization well after the vendor in question withdrew from the
> ISO process.

well microsoft did lobby for the _s functions originally,
the msvc library team is likely responsible for the concept.
it turned into tr 24731 and eventually annex k in c11,
by that time microsoft may not have much to do with it.

one can dig through wg14 to see how it evolved.

initial work:
a tr 24731 meeting (ms is still involved):
some tr 24731 drafts:
austing group comments:
tr 24731 rationale:
c1x inclusion:

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.