Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yc3bptzhluejuxaawnjgwu234ii7dwmxsacmaa6tyrx2tslkc4@bw2dnt3rlgbl>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 19:47:55 +0200
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, 
	bug-gnulib@....org, musl@...ts.openwall.com, 
	наб <nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>, Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcilroy@...tmouth.edu>, 
	Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Robert Seacord <rcseacord@...il.com>, 
	Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>, Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>, 
	JeanHeyd Meneide <phdofthehouse@...il.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, 
	Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>, 
	Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>, 
	Vincent Lefevre <vincent@...c17.net>, Mark Harris <mark.hsj@...il.com>, 
	Collin Funk <collin.funk1@...il.com>, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@....com>, 
	DJ Delorie <dj@...hat.com>, Cristian Rodríguez <cristian@...riguez.im>, 
	Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@...plt.org>, Sam James <sam@...too.org>, Mark Wielaard <mark@...mp.org>, 
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...hat.com>, Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@...il.com>, 
	Christopher Bazley <chris.bazley.wg14@...il.com>, eskil@...ession.se
Subject: Re: alx-0029r4 - Restore the traditional realloc(3) specification

Hi Eric,

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 07:36:01PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:16:06PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > 	@@ New footnote XXX
> > > > 	+XXX)
> > > > 	+While atypical,
> > > > 	+<b>realloc</b> may fail
> > > > 	+for a call that shrinks the block of memory.
> > > 
> > > Is it worth wording this as "may fail or return a different pointer
> > > for a call that shrinks the block of memory"?
> > 
> > Yeah, we can add that.
> 
> I've changed my mind; the current wording of ISO C makes it that all
> realloc(3) successful return values are new pointers, and it doesn't
> seem to mention that the old pointer could be kept (I remember having
> seen such text in older standards, I think; or maybe in POSIX), so let's
> keep in that sense, and assume that realloc(3) always moves the memory,
> even if sometimes it doesn't, as that is not observable by a conforming
> program.

Oh, the text is still there; I didn't see it.  :)

	The realloc function returns a pointer to the new object
	(which can have the same value as a pointer to the old object),
	or a null pointer if the new object has not been allocated

I think I'll just remove that parenthetical, since it serves little
purpose.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)

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.