On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:42:14AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've applied a patch to document the conformance of realloc(3) and
> reallocarray(3). See below, both the patch, and the formatted changes.
>
> BTW, Paul, Bruno, does gnulib also wrap reallocarray(3)? If not, it
> shou
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list writes:
> The AIX xlc compiler gives this warning:
>
> "../../../gettext-tools/gnulib-lib/string-desc.h", line 674.24: 1506-1332 (W)
> A function with return type "void" may not return a value of type "void".
>
> Fixed like this:
Do gcc and cla
Bruno Haible writes:
>> Do gcc and clang not warn about this?
>
> With option '-pedantic', they warn, yes:
>
> $ cat foo.c
> extern void foobar (int);
> void foo (int x) { return foobar (x); }
>
> $ gcc -Wall -S -pedantic foo.c
> foo.c: In function ‘foo’:
> foo.c:2:27: warning: ISO C forbids ‘ret
Collin Funk wrote:
> > "../../../gettext-tools/gnulib-lib/string-desc.h", line 674.24: 1506-1332
> > (W) A function with return type "void" may not return a value of type
> > "void".
> >
> > Fixed like this:
>
> Do gcc and clang not warn about this?
With option '-pedantic', they warn, yes:
$ c
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:49:43PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar writes:
>
> > BTW, Paul, Bruno, does gnulib also wrap reallocarray(3)? If not, it
> > should.
>
> Yep, Gnulib has had it since 2017 after it was added to glibc.
Thanks! Yep, now I revised the patch that
Alejandro Colomar writes:
> BTW, Paul, Bruno, does gnulib also wrap reallocarray(3)? If not, it
> should.
Yep, Gnulib has had it since 2017 after it was added to glibc.
Collin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
I've applied a patch to document the conformance of realloc(3) and
reallocarray(3). See below, both the patch, and the formatted changes.
BTW, Paul, Bruno, does gnulib also wrap reallocarray(3)? If not, it
should.
Have a lovely day!
Alex
---
commit 7279622113349f32428fa14467ba2aa
The AIX xlc compiler gives this warning:
"../../../gettext-tools/gnulib-lib/string-desc.h", line 674.24: 1506-1332 (W) A
function with return type "void" may not return a value of type "void".
Fixed like this:
2025-06-18 Bruno Haible
string-desc: Fix a compiler warning.
* l
Hi Rich, Elliott,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:35:50PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:20:54AM -0400, enh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:58 PM Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Elliott, Florian,
> > >
> > > glibc and Bionic are non-conforming to POSIX.1-2024. The
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:42:40PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 17 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > RETURN VALUE
> >
> > If size is 0,
> > ...
> > either:
> >
> > - A null pointer shall be returned
> >and, if ptr is not
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:20:54AM -0400, enh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:58 PM Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> >
> > Hi Elliott, Florian,
> >
> > glibc and Bionic are non-conforming to POSIX.1-2024. The fix that we're
> > proposing would make them conforming. Does conformance to POSIX.1-2024
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, enh wrote:
>
> >not when POSIX screwed up and made a change that made most of the
> >existing implementations non-conformant, no. that sounds like a POSIX
>
> “most of”?
...weighted by number of users (who could be n
On Jun 17 2025, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> RETURN VALUE
>
> If size is 0,
> ...
> either:
>
> - A null pointer shall be returned
>and, if ptr is not a null pointer,
>errno shall be set to EINVAL.
>
> - A pointer to t
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, enh wrote:
>not when POSIX screwed up and made a change that made most of the
>existing implementations non-conformant, no. that sounds like a POSIX
“most of”?
Looks to me like most implementations already do the latter,
and some might do the former, and only a minority (the
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:58 PM Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> Hi Elliott, Florian,
>
> glibc and Bionic are non-conforming to POSIX.1-2024. The fix that we're
> proposing would make them conforming. Does conformance to POSIX.1-2024
> mean something to you?
not when POSIX screwed up and made a ch
15 matches
Mail list logo
