On Mon, 16 Jun 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Since glibc and Bionic are the two implementations that are currently > broken, could you please fix your implementations? I'm sure the > C Committee will be much easier to convince if the implentations have > changed in a clear direction. > > But if the committee says we're not fixing ISO C until the > implementations are fixed, and the implementations (you) refuse to > accept the fix until the committee standardizes something, then we'll > have the problem forever.
I think a better way to eliminate UB here would be to require this erroneous case to terminate execution. The sequence of changes to semantics in past standard versions means that it's always a bad idea for applications to try to use realloc with size 0 and preventing them more strongly from doing so seems better to me than defining semantics that an application might then be able to use in 10-15 years' time. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
