[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJgzZoqn76SmogvEsLm2R8HcwkqKofn5E481Hw4XBLOFjAt4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:26:15 -0400
From: enh <enh@...gle.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>, наб <nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>,
Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Robert Seacord <rcseacord@...il.com>, Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>,
bug-gnulib@....org, JeanHeyd Meneide <phdofthehouse@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, enh wrote:
>
> >not when POSIX screwed up and made a change that made most of the
> >existing implementations non-conformant, no. that sounds like a POSIX
>
> “most of”?
...weighted by number of users (who could be negatively affected by
change), of course.
> Looks to me like most implementations already do the latter,
> and some might do the former, and only a minority (the three
> mentioned earlier) don’t.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
> “It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
> seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
> seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.”
> -- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
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.
