Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:10:02 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Marking select(2) as restrict Message-ID: <20180221201002.GC94212@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <23181.50488.186767.579361@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> References: <CAF6rxg=h_oMiUu7P=GAOQf_OySQM2w31hg6Kas%2B3jeEM3qq_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgnt9c0n8i-nHQwoKGbZKF2hM5AZqEJnz0CLo26XOO4_sg@mail.gmail.com> <20180221032247.GA81670@ns.kevlo.org> <CAF6rxg=WwqeBnmJzfOZgtwrYesXPfvJFeaVmQwtTa_89_sxaJg@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfo46bhfaRpbqOmJjk4%2B=1R2c5kvmrJPENaxNgK==5M4kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxg=wNVgDUF9o744ngmzPNeHB3hqdrLufy=yS3D4osczxFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180221104400.GU94212@kib.kiev.ua> <23181.46427.671514.319710@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20180221185920.GA94212@kib.kiev.ua> <23181.50488.186767.579361@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:15:04PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:59:20 +0200, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> said: > > >> [I wrote:] > >> Compliance with the 2001 POSIX standard (and subsequent versions). > >> > >> After C99, all POSIX interfaces that use pointers were updated to > >> include the restrict qualifier where applicable. > > > Restrict barely puts any requirements on the implementation, but does on > > the consumers. Which is the cause of this discussion. > > I can't speak to this particular case, but my understanding is that > "restrict" qualifier was only added to arguments if the behavior was > already unspecified or undefined when the pointers in question were > aliases (so the consumer was already broken if it did so). Certainly > such code has been broken for the better part of two decades. Undefined != broken, whatever some compiler vendors try to bluff. > > > Also, what incompliance consequences are ? I am not even sure that the > > prototype mismatch can be detected by means other than parsing the headers. > > It is permissible for an application to explicitly declare any > function defined in the standard, so long as it uses the prototype set > out in the standard. Also, any vendor wanting POSIX or UNIX > certification for a derivative system would have to fix it anyway. For such vendors, backward compatibility with existing software should have different priorities than for us. We need a useful software runnable on the system first, and blue sky stuff like POSIX compliance second.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180221201002.GC94212>