On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 09:27, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2024, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > There's no requirement that system_error uses strerror, that's just an > > implementation detail. > > *nod*. I meant it was more of a libc test in the case that relied on > strerror. But I fully agree that testing the C++ standard API makes > perfect sense. It's just that maybe we want workarounds for cases in > which we implement in terms of libc, but libc doesn't live up to the > standard. Tolerating NULL returns from strerror would be an easy one; > do we want that? Checking strerror acceptable ranges (that don't > trigger runtime errors) before calling it, and taking an alternate path > when needed, that would be harder to do, and IMHO of dubious value.
Yes, handling a null result from strerror seems sensible if that's the reality.
