Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:19:35 -0400
From:      Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org>, jhb@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sysctl.c
Message-ID:  <20020729121935.G78633@espresso.q9media.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020729170426.F6864@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from dot@dotat.at on Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 05:04:26PM %2B0100
References:  <XFMail.20020728234222.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200207290514.g6T5EPwr065150@gw.catspoiler.org> <200207291600.g6TG0geG099923@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20020729170426.F6864@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:00:42PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:14:25 -0700 (PDT), Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org> said:
> > 
> > > One question is whether we want to support calls where the old and new
> > > pointers point to the same address.
> > 
> > I'd be happy to add a `restrict' qualifier to disallow this from
> > happening.
> 
> Excuse me for being pedantic, but it doesn't disallow it, it merely
> documents that the function has undefined behaviour in that situation.

And worse, GCC doesn't define the behavior as producing a warning,
even for obvious violations.

Best regards,
Mike Barcroft

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020729121935.G78633>