Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: UB of memcpy(NULL, NULL, 0) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:57:09 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <7aec2d7f-6f2d-4621-9f98-91947f461f27@googlegroups.com> <18bf4226-5b9a-4603-9809-47cdd83cc16a@googlegroups.com> <7c4ec471-ffa0-44df-b3d5-1e4707822964@googlegroups.com> <6b008985-2810-4adb-a4fe-39e2f2912b42@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dc97ebc10d9ee65592f107439c98c97d"; logging-data="18800"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BLYmxJvi15wY+0Kr1SaRx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YInwGEEO+OCtVNwgmxlsoGGRJDI= sha1:8uxjOlUhpjdCxb3vnUcR3u8duCI= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:95246 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:05:09 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: [...] >> How many such macros would you want to add to the language? How much >> bigger would the standard document have to be to describe them all? > > The amount of extra text required would be less than the amount of text the > Standard devotes to many things which are applicable in far fewer situations > than would be a definition of programs that can be guaranteed not to invoke > UB on any conforming implementation, and which would be applicable to > programs accomplishing a much broader range of tasks than the rather > anemic "strictly-conforming". Glad we cleared that up. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"