[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <209f0899-63a1-4579-8d8c-d09222e32c67@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:41:04 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, enh <enh@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>, наб
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>, Robert Seacord <rcseacord@...il.com>,
Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>, bug-gnulib@....org,
JeanHeyd Meneide <phdofthehouse@...il.com>, Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>
Subject: Re: Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)
On 2025-06-20 09:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> I am less certain without more
> research whether the wording that Andreas was referring to at the time
> the feature knob was switched made it into the approved C99 unchanged,
> or if that was still undergoing debates in the C committee.
As I understand it Andreas quoted the C89 wording which did not make it
into C99 unchanged. So (as Alex suggested an hour or two ago) perhaps
the C99 draft Andreas used hadn't changed the wording from C89 yet, or
perhaps he simply quoted UNIX98 which I presume used the C89 wording.
Wherever Andreas got the wording from, he misinterpreted it as
necessitating a change to glibc.
> Paul's [2021] use of
> "historical" could easily be read in terms of glibc history
> (independent of other implementations).
As I recall that was most of it, though I was probably also thinking of
System V (of which AIX is the only current survivor).
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.
