[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250711170427.GA1827@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:04:27 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@...cox-Tech.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] string.h: Unconditionally expose C23 functions
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:44:44AM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2025, at 08:47, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > memccpy(3), strnlen(3), strdup(3), and strndup(3) are now specified by
> > ISO C, since C23.
> >
> > Link: <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf>
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > include/string.h | 13 +++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/string.h b/include/string.h
> > index 83e2b946..723cfc42 100644
> > --- a/include/string.h
> > +++ b/include/string.h
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ extern "C" {
> >
> > void *memcpy (void *__restrict, const void *__restrict, size_t);
> > void *memmove (void *, const void *, size_t);
> > +void *memccpy (void *__restrict, const void *__restrict, int, size_t);
> > void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
> > int memcmp (const void *, const void *, size_t);
> > void *memchr (const void *, int, size_t);
> > @@ -36,6 +37,9 @@ char *strncpy (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict, size_t);
> > char *strcat (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict);
> > char *strncat (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict, size_t);
> >
> > +char *strdup (const char *);
> > +char *strndup (const char *, size_t);
> > +
> > int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
> > int strncmp (const char *, const char *, size_t);
> >
> > @@ -52,6 +56,7 @@ char *strstr (const char *, const char *);
> > char *strtok (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict);
> >
> > size_t strlen (const char *);
> > +size_t strnlen (const char *, size_t);
> >
> > char *strerror (int);
> >
> > @@ -66,9 +71,6 @@ char *strtok_r (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict, char **__restrict);
> > int strerror_r (int, char *, size_t);
> > char *stpcpy(char *__restrict, const char *__restrict);
> > char *stpncpy(char *__restrict, const char *__restrict, size_t);
> > -size_t strnlen (const char *, size_t);
> > -char *strdup (const char *);
> > -char *strndup (const char *, size_t);
> > char *strsignal(int);
> > char *strerror_l (int, locale_t);
> > int strcoll_l (const char *, const char *, locale_t);
> > @@ -76,11 +78,6 @@ size_t strxfrm_l (char *__restrict, const char *__restrict, size_t, locale_t);
> > void *memmem(const void *, size_t, const void *, size_t);
> > #endif
> >
> > -#if defined(_XOPEN_SOURCE) || defined(_GNU_SOURCE) \
> > - || defined(_BSD_SOURCE)
> > -void *memccpy (void *__restrict, const void *__restrict, int, size_t);
> > -#endif
> > -
> > #if defined(_GNU_SOURCE) || defined(_BSD_SOURCE)
> > char *strsep(char **, const char *);
> > size_t strlcat (char *, const char *, size_t);
> > --
> > 2.50.0
>
>
> These should not be unconditionally exposed because you can still
> build C99 or C11 code against musl.
>
> We actually already had to patch something like this *away* (in
> https://cgit.adelielinux.org/musl/commit/?id=41735bdeff548ce44afe21aa21f1345047eb18e4)
> to ensure no namespace pollution. Please don’t make it worse. Add ||
> __STDC_VERSION__ >= 202311L instead.
Generally we only attempt to conform strictly to latest version of the
relevant standard, not past versions. However in this case, the
namespace str* and mem* was already reserved, so I think even without
that policy, there's no reason not to expose them unconditionally
unless we're using strictness to expose non-conforming
application-side expectations.
Rich
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.
