[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250307171730.GV2724612@port70.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:17:30 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: f128 aliases for long double math symbols
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2025-03-04 15:24:17 -0500]:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025, Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > >Not if they're implemented with code at the same address. If they're
> > >the *same function*.
> >
> > But they *are*!
> >
> > I don’t see anything saying that, if I use the memmove implementation
> > for memcpy, they cannot be aliased to the same function pointer. (At
> > least in C99, haven’t looked at C23.)
>
> The standard defines a memmove function and a memcpy function. These
> are two functions. Thereby they compare not equal. The fact that you
> can make up some mechanism outside of the standard to use the same
> definition for both doesn't somehow make them the same function.
>
> Rich
those have compatible type so the type argument does not work.
i dont think the standard explicitly requires unequal library
functions. in practice aliasing is widely used so de facto
portable code cannot rely on different address.
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.
