This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:56:24 -0200
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <528BA2DA dot 3090608 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311192205550 dot 8742 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20131120073002 dot GA24541 at domone dot podge> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201607080 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Nov 20, 2013, "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The point of an "errno" annotation for AS-safety is that only the user
> writing their signal handler can decide whether saving and restoring errno
> is the right thing to do in their program, depending on whether the signal
> handler calls relevant functions with arguments that might involve a
> change to errno and what code might be interrupted by the signal.
But then... for functions that may modify errno, isn't that *already*
part of their documentation? Arguably, it should be, and then the only
missing bits would be adding the caveat as a keyword (easyish), and
verifying that functions don't inadvertently set errno without saying so
(harder, global analysis).
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer