This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] Initial support for C11 Annex K Bounds checking functions
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ulrich Bayer <ubayer at sba-research dot org>
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:23:53 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] Initial support for C11 Annex K Bounds checking functions
- References: <5102DBFD dot 4060103 at sba-research dot org> <513DE7A1 dot 8080501 at sba-research dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1305151554100 dot 15900 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51AF6406 dot 30201 at sba-research dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306051643310 dot 14749 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51AFB0D1 dot 4010708 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306052201280 dot 7769 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51AFE224 dot 2090207 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306061145300 dot 28623 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51B097D4 dot 8020507 at sba-research dot org>
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Ulrich Bayer wrote:
> Another question that comes to my mind is what happens in case
> __STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ is neither 0 (user explicitly disables
> Annex K functions) nor 1 (user wants it).
I think values other than 0 and 1, having no semantics defined in Annex K,
are undefined behavior - but the requirement for a diagnostic for
conflicting definitions still applies if e.g. the value is 2 for one
header inclusion and 3 for another (just as is required if the program
both violates a constraint and does something explicitly listed as
undefined).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com