| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| From: | Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se> |
| Message-Id: | <200301102322.h0ANMfu27001@brother.ludd.luth.se> |
| Subject: | Re: strlcat, strlcpy, revision 2 [PATCH] |
| To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Date: | Sat, 11 Jan 2003 00:22:41 +0100 (MET) |
| In-Reply-To: | <4634-Fri10Jan2003223842+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 10, 2003 10:38:43 PM |
| X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: "Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > + If @var{dest} and @var{src} are overlapping buffers, the behavior
> > + is undefined.
>
> What does this mean, exactly? The specific implementation we have is
> deterministic, right? So it is possible to tell exactly what does it
Probably. I think he's talkning about C standard undefined behaviour.
> do when the buffers overlap, right? If so, I think we should describe
> the actual behavior of our implementation.
That's a good idea. But might not say much ("if they do, your code
might do anything; at least one of the effects being writing over
memory way out of bounds").
Right,
MartinS
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |