[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324181434.GH17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:14:34 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Yousong Zhou <yszhou4tech@...il.com>, Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
gdb-patches@...rceware.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Fix invalid sigprocmask call
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:33:55PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 24 2017, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> 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. 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.
>
> The standard says that how must be ignored if set is NULL.
The standard says in one place that it's "not significant" if "set is
a null pointer", but then in another that the call "shall fail" if
"the how argument is not equal to one of the defined values". The
former could be interpreted either as allowing any of the 3 defined
values (doesn't matter which) for how when set is null, or allowing
any value at all; the latter interpretation conflicts with the
normative errors section.
Anyway I don't think language-lawyering this offline is productive. If
anyone really cares about the behavior one way or the other, take it
to the Austin Group tracker where the decision-makers will see it.
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.
