[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130114084527.GA4055@cachalot>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:45:27 +0400
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: musl as a framework to test applications' compatibility with POSIX
(was: NULL)
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:11 -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> In any case, this thread has gotten WAY off-topic, going all over the
> place into territory about the merits and demerits of different
> languages and anti-FSF politics. Those topics may be worth discussing
> in some contexts, but it seems to have left everybody really confused
> about the issues at hand, which are:
>
> - whether we should work around broken programs that pass NULL to
> variadic functions
>
> - and if so, how
>
> The emerging consensus seems to be using
>
> #define NULL 0L
>
> unconditionally in both C and C++ mode.
If such slick and unobvious places of C/POSIX/C++/gcc/etc. applications
are explicitly detected and handled, then probably it worth implementing
some checker in libc/toolchain which is detected (probably at runtime)
and warning is emitted at runtime/compile-time? gcc'isms, UBs, etc.
In musl libc it can be implemented as -DI_WANT_TO_DETECT_GCCISMS.
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
