This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: asprintf() issue
- From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Archie Cobbs <archie dot cobbs at gmail dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:17:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: asprintf() issue
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CANSoFxt-cdc-+C4u-rTENMtY4X9RpRSuv+axDswSPxbDgag8_Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <55520F8F dot 9020308 at redhat dot com> <CANSoFxvac6_uBgwzWm5q6U+GcWzzKtDtDP0BVvE4eL08zXHs5Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <5552183C dot 2070809 at redhat dot com> <CANSoFxv7Qoani75KMCk6vfHL8j7HbnTQPEc2B3TZcRVPGjmdyg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKgNAkgeanhM58s=RDi+EunSu8UMDjaAdzpBh2G7HFdm8vOgqA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150513025344 dot GE22975 at vapier>
- Reply-to: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
Hi Mike,
On 13 May 2015 at 04:53, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12 May 2015 20:11, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> On 12 May 2015 at 18:29, Archie Cobbs <archie.cobbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> On 05/12/2015 05:00 PM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Dynamic-Output.html
>> >>>
>> >>> That link clearly says nothing about *strp on failure.
>> >>
>> >> To me, this implies the original value is preserved.
>>
>> IMO, on this point, "silence" is not a specification; a statement is a
>> specification.
>>
>> >> We can add this to
>> >> the documentation if that makes everyone happy.
>> >
>> > Frankly I don't see how saying nothing implies anything, but I'm happy
>> > to accept your interpretation :)
>> >
>> > Please add a sentence to that effect, thanks.
>> >
>> > Michael, is that sufficient for you?
>>
>> It's not a question of what suffices for me. I don't think the glibc
>> folk normally do specification by fiat, and I assume that such a
>> change to the glibc manual, which implies a certain tightening of the
>> spec, will at least need to go through some review process.
>
> the review is consensus on the mailing list from the developer community
Yup, that's what I expected. It's just that only one person (Florian)
had responded so far.
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/