Hi Jonathan,
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 08:38:15PM GMT, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 20:28, Alejandro Colomar <alx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 06:30:50PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, dem 05.07.2024 um 17:24 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 17:02, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc <gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 17:53 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > > > At least, I hope there's consensus that while current GCC doesn't warn
> > > > > > about this, ideally it should, which means it should warn for valid uses
> > > > > > of strtol(3), which means strtol(3) should be fixed, in all of ISO,
> > > > > > POSIX, and glibc.
> > > > >
> > > > > It **shouldn't**. strtol will only violate restrict if it's wrongly
> > > > > implemented, or something dumb is done like "strtol((const char*) &p,
> > > > > &p, 0)".
> > > > >
> > > > > See my previous reply.
> >
> > That's not right. See my reply to yours, Xi. The restrict in
> >
> > char **endptr
> >
> > already prevents calls such as strtol(x, x, 0).
>
> That seems to contradict footnote 153 in C23.
Did you mean a different footnote number?
Here's 153 in N3047:
153) An implementation can delay the choice of which integer type until
all enumeration constants have been seen.
which seems completely unrelated.
Cheers,
Alex
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
