X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com Message-ID: <2b.4a3749ff.2cda4d4b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 07:55:39 EST Subject: Re: C99 Functions Under Development and Checkout To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com CC: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2b.4a3749ff.2cda4d4b_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6021 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com --part1_2b.4a3749ff.2cda4d4b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2003 12:57:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il writes: > >On the other hand, if some miscreant user decides to define an > >identifier with the name math_errhandling, all bets are off (the behavior > is > >undefined). > > The ANSI Standard explicitly says that the name of any identifier with > a possibly external linkage is ``reserved'', which is to say > applications cannot use them for their own identifiers and assume > they (the applications) will work. > > Imagine a program which defines an identifier named, say `malloc': is > there any reason why it should work correctly? I don't think so. > You are correct, of course. I was only echoing the sense of text in ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), paragraph 7.12, subparagraph 9, which allows for such a possibility: > If a macro definition is suppressed or a program defines an identifier with > the name math_errhandling , the behavior is undefined. > > --part1_2b.4a3749ff.2cda4d4b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/5/2003 12:57:06 AM Eastern Standar= d Time, eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il writes:

>On the other hand, if some miscreant user decides to de= fine an
>identifier with the name math_errhandling, all bets are off (the behavio= r is
>undefined).

The ANSI Standard explicitly says that the name of any identifier with
a possibly external linkage is ``reserved'', which is to say
applications cannot use them for their own identifiers and assume
they (the applications) will work.

Imagine a program which defines an identifier named, say `malloc': is
there any reason why it should work correctly?  I don't think so.


You are correct, of course.  I was only echoing the sense of text in IS= O/IEC 9899:1999 (E), paragraph 7.12, subparagraph 9, which allows for such a= possibility:

If a macro definition is suppressed or a program defines an= identifier with the name math_errhandling , the behavior is undefined.



 --part1_2b.4a3749ff.2cda4d4b_boundary--