[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03692d47-88c1-3246-f599-713f5bf51cf7@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
наб <nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>,
Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Robert Seacord <rcseacord@...il.com>,
Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>, Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>,
bug-gnulib@....org, JeanHeyd Meneide <phdofthehouse@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Since glibc and Bionic are the two implementations that are currently
> broken, could you please fix your implementations? I'm sure the
> C Committee will be much easier to convince if the implentations have
> changed in a clear direction.
>
> But if the committee says we're not fixing ISO C until the
> implementations are fixed, and the implementations (you) refuse to
> accept the fix until the committee standardizes something, then we'll
> have the problem forever.
I think a better way to eliminate UB here would be to require this
erroneous case to terminate execution. The sequence of changes to
semantics in past standard versions means that it's always a bad idea for
applications to try to use realloc with size 0 and preventing them more
strongly from doing so seems better to me than defining semantics that an
application might then be able to use in 10-15 years' time.
--
Joseph S. Myers
josmyers@...hat.com
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.
