[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <afd23ef7-da97-449c-8370-cb5552b95917@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:59:37 -0300
From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>,
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 16/06/25 16:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Adhemerval Zanella Netto:
>
>> I have re-read the whole thread and it seems that most maintainers are OK
>> with this change and agree that current POSIX's realloc spec has some
>> drawbacks (albeit it still allows current glic behavior).
>>
>> The only one involved in the previous thread that raised some objection to
>> this change was Joseph [1], but I will let to say if he still think this
>> potential change to glibc is ill-advised.
>
> I objected then, and I'm objecting now as well.
>
> My rationale has not changed:
>
> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/8734kl1pim.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com/>
>
> I believe Siddhesh's proposed patch as the time was mostly a device to
> drive the discussion to a conclusion, which it did.
Alright, sorry if I missed it (for some reason Alejandro link did not have
your reply in the thread overview).
So I think we are far from consensus on this change.
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.
