Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:50:50 +0200 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-standards@freebsd.org, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: standards/188316: Visibility of ntohl etc. and POSIX 2008 Message-ID: <20140518215050.GA8365@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20140407024203.M6470@besplex.bde.org> References: <201404061430.s36EUbFE092028@cgiserv.freebsd.org> <20140407024203.M6470@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:43:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > >> Description: > > According to POSIX 2008, the functions ntohl etc. are defined in > > <arpa/inet.h> > > (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/htonl.html), > > which works because they are defined unconditionally there. > > However, just including <netinet/in.h> should also define them > > (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/netinet_in.h.html): > >> The htonl(), htons(), ntohl(), and ntohs() functions shall be available > >> as described in <arpa/inet.h>. Inclusion of the <netinet/in.h> header may > >> also make visible all symbols from <arpa/inet.h>. > POSIX.1-2001 also says this. > > But ntohl etc are inside a "#if !defined(_KERNEL) && __BSD_VISIBLE" > > in <netinet/in.h>, violating the "shall be" requirement above. > The requirement was somehow missed before. Probably due to its bad wording. > The bad wording "shall be available" is only used for namespaces twice in > POSIX.1-2001-draft7 (for {h_errno} in <netdb.h> and for {ntoh*} in > <netinet/in.h>. The normal wording is "shall be defined as described in > <otherheader.h>"). > >> How-To-Repeat: > > echo '#include <arpa/inet.h>\nint main(){htonl(1);}' | cc -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -x c - > > (all good) > > echo '#include <netinet/in.h>\nint main(){htonl(1);}' | cc -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -x c - > > <stdin>:2:12: warning: implicit declaration of function 'htonl' is invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > int main(){htonl(1);} > > ^ > > 1 warning generated. > >> Fix: > > Guard the definition with __POSIX_VISIBLE >= 200112. > This is wrong too, and is inconsistent with <arpa/inet.h> where there > the symbols are defined unconditionally (if this wouldn't be redundant). > The correctness of this depends on the symbols being in a header that > doesn't exist in versions of POSIX that don't have the symbols. I > think it is indeed correct, because POSIX started specifying both the > symbols and the headers in 2001. Howver, the unconditional declarations > may be wrong for XSI, and aren't really right for BSD. In 4.4BSD, they > were declared unconditionally in <sys/types.h> via nested pollution from > <machine/endian.h>, and were only declared in the POSIX headers as a > side effect of these headers being broken unless the application included > <sys/types.h>. Similarly in FreeBSD-1 (and Net/2?). Applications written > for this polluted API are no longer supported. However, the documented > API (byteorder.3) was that these functions are declared in <sys/param.h>. > It is now that these functions are declared in the 2 POSIX headers. So you propose to change the "#if !defined(_KERNEL) && __BSD_VISIBLE" conditional to "#ifndef _KERNEL"? This affects only old versions of POSIX (where <netinet/in.h> may not be included anyway) and non-POSIX standard C (which does not define <netinet/in.h> either). Note that there are other __POSIX_VISIBLE >= 200112 conditionals in <netinet/in.h>, so the submitter's change may be more consistent, even if it is somehow wrong. -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140518215050.GA8365>