This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: sparc: fix for missing include file
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Cc: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, Ondrej Bilka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, wbx at openadk dot org, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:32:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: sparc: fix for missing include file
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141211 dot 150535 dot 106178897111220975 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <20141213 dot 130022 dot 1182209281374969366 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <548C8EBF dot 6010003 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <20141213 dot 143210 dot 2082290151274481189 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <548C9AC9 dot 8020608 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <CANu=DmifMhj52tF41O-pHdGSR9cBri=AC17PYsk4J1yeTS=MhQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <548F4686 dot 5070509 at cs dot ucla dot edu>
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:37 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 01:34 AM, Will Newton wrote:
> > runtime analysis tools (e.g. sanitizers, valgrind) may trip over this
> >
> This is the real question. In many places, glibc is not safe in the
> presence of sanitizers that insert undefined behavior whenever the C
> standard allows them to. Current practice is for these sanitizers to
> maintain a list of exceptions, so that they don't cry wolf in situations
> like these. Should we continue this practice, or should we strive to
> make glibc safe even in the presence of a purposely-finicky implementation?
I think we should try to avoid undefined behavior, unless we really need
it. Making it harder to use those tools won't be helpful in the long
term, in my opinion. The less "special" glibc code is the better,
probably.