[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [patches] Fix *asprintf() to be compatible with *BSD and sanity
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [patches] Fix *asprintf() to be compatible with *BSD and sanity
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 20:38:35 -0700
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> Here is a, hopefully self explanatory, patch to fix *asprintf() to be
>> compatible with *BSD and what any sane C programmers expects. Drepper
>> NAKd it years ago...
> So I'd suggest raising the issue with WG14, and unless they come up with
> good reasons the BSD semantics are problematic then I'm inclined to put
> this in EGLIBC as being a compatibility bug fix.
The WG14 process is not fast. It might take months to get any kind of
To me, this change looks like pretty harmless -- it will add a few bytes
to the library, but no instructions on the critical path (assuming that
error returns are rare), and could help to avoid Heisenbugs. There's no
API/ABI impact, so it seems like this is just a QoI issue.
What's the harm in putting it in EGLIBC without WG14 sign-off?
(650) 331-3385 x713