From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <musl-return-20671-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E493216C6
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:04:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 5425 invoked by uid 550); 19 Mar 2024 21:00:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 5389 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2024 21:00:24 -0000
X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:04:41 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail;
	t=1710882282; bh=S9L1x+PGH9sVqwEmPVTZArniqUDPhFcrtNM+CKptTzI=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=ZyhVPf+V9o9qPmUIqHHST9iUSuLeYMnsgPtNLm/DhJMqNdkv/XJCBai+L55793QNc
	 jajOH81zWb+30Vi1Z/mLdhWUkEvyUSLaoSmlsiUztg5aXvPjureQoVf07dsL1ZynLI
	 EcCIOBb+E3uEjhz5zgx8IsZ6ST5tEjp5CA4kKUC+0IOF/y2sR0rE1dAc5mOfmUo8Kb
	 v3dlovw3C4yyw2eO+xMdNf7vMrxIDAiQdGpV/mHkvf4O4ZPjZF0BdSa5OMpTmzE5ZZ
	 7vZa2vajLA8TFWDUJnL7/rp3QcbV9FMIo+nKv/XnxQc98FRiBOzkbt+YhpgwLd+qZl
	 gv09yWHfIxUNA==
From: NRK <nrk@disroot.org>
To: =?utf-8?B?SuKCkeKCmeKCmw==?= Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, musl@lists.openwall.com, 
	Mike Cui <cuicui@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gjidsps4d2umlyfewoytiucpjb34i3zdcvd7txfovki45c5757@7d2gz6zlmipa>
References: <CAMbjb11yqF2fzp4bR3k4_=jp_bc7cNP15vJecEvNBGHgeXL5nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240318213441.GH4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <627epdel4gidvu46u5ua2mclieqy3wwqbs7sxjgtgrsmkvn4up@ehu5ru6micnr>
 <CAMbjb12WQL+DQSP0xXy84fNTEGTbE2DX1=oX-Wc_s2wyRAxypg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240319131833.GI4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAMbjb13m8_+FHRfOV5M3ff6nf1iT=2Rk4mzom55FZArqAYUEdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240319154222.GK4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAMbjb13VDdiGWsx0jHx5GniNp9OyMiM0LL0muXsqeK+ZYdoLJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240319160832.GL4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20240319173930.57b8eb30@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240319173930.57b8eb30@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [musl] Potential bug in __res_msend_rc() wrt to union
 initialization.

> actually the introduction of `{}` versus `{0}` in C23 was not meant to
> provide any difference in semantics, just to make the syntax nicer and
> consistent with C++.

Regardless of what the intention was, the reality is that it *does* have
semantic difference. Specifically, empty initialization `{}` benefits
from the default initialization rules, which specify zero-ing out the
padding bits whereas `{0}` doesn't guarantee that.

- NRK