musl - Re: Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3lnqw5j5fkymova6gnoez7rpsvt2najjax52pmqwx5mtwwtz6h@q6cwbmzmspas>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 04:28:47 +0200
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
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>, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, 
	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)

Hi Eric,

On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 01:31:38AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > 		-  POSIX.1-2001
> > > 
> > > This one defers to C89 anywhere that it is not explicitly documenting
> > > with CX shading.
> > 
> > Ahh, I had thought it would defer to C99 because it's older, but I guess
> > it's like POSIX.1-2024 that doesn't defer to C23.  Thanks!  Then I stand
> > corrected, and glibc conforms to POSIX.1-2001.
> 
> I was reading the memccpy(3) specification in POSIX.1-2004, and found
> this:
> 
> 	Issue 6
> 
> 		The restrict keyword is added to the memccpy() prototype
> 		for alignment with the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard.
> 
> So, Issue 6 aligned with ISO C99?  Is this exceptional, or does then
> POSIX.1-2001 not defer to ISO C89?


POSIX.1-2004 certainly seems to be using deferring to C99, as it has the
c99(1) shell utility.

<https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html#tag_02_01_04_02>

and has several references to ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

<https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html#tag_02_02_01>

But I didn't find any to C89.

Which means, glibc didn't conform to POSIX.1-2004 (and much likely,
neither to POSIX.1-2001; but I don't have a link to that).  Anyway, I
guess n3612 will solve our problems forever, hopefully.  See you!  :)


Cheers,
Alex

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

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

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.