[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324164135.GG17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:41:35 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
Cc: Yousong Zhou <yszhou4tech@...il.com>, gdb-patches@...rceware.org,
musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Fix invalid sigprocmask call
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:52:08PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/24/2017 03:35 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > If you file a report and it's deemed a bug in the standard and
> > changed, I'm happy to change this on the musl side. Just keep me
> > posted on what happens.
>
> Keep me posted as well.
>
> > I don't have any preference on what the
> > behavior "should" be here (IMO imposing a behavior when the caller has
> > violated constraints like passed a wrong value for how is pointless
> > anyway) but I do want to conform to the standard.
>
> IMO, no constrains were violated.
I don't mean a constraint in the formal sense. Rather I'm talking
about the whole class of errors that are "programming mistake caused a
wrong/nonsensical value to be passed for an argument" as opposed to
errors that can legitimately happen in a non-buggy program (out of
memory, no such file, limit exceeded, invalid input, etc.). Sorry I
wasn't clear.
Rich
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.
