[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0e4ce46-8b58-4589-9e2f-f3998b080037@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:31:54 -0600
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: Thiago Macieira <thiago@...ieira.org>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
Cc: libc-alpha@...rceware.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
"A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@...cox-tech.com>,
Lénárd Szolnoki <cpp@...ardszolnoki.com>,
Collin Funk <collin.funk1@...il.com>,
Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer@...il.com>,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@...hat.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: realloci(): A realloc() variant that works in-place
On 10/31/25 11:25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I think the Committee would balk at adding a function
> that takes a pointer to already-freed memory whose purpose is to allow the
> contents of the new object to be adjusted solely based on arithmetic.
Do you know of any platforms where this does not in fact work? Other
than sanitizing platforms that go to some lengths to impose the
Committee's rules even though the hardware would work fine?
If not, then perhaps we can convince the Committee that the mismatch
between the current rules and reality is causing real harm, and that
it'd be a win for C's users to change the standard to match reality better.
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.
