From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/11190 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gdb.patches,gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH] Fix invalid sigprocmask call Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:14:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20170324181434.GH17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1490324519-11228-1-git-send-email-yszhou4tech@gmail.com> <2b0bab84-e36e-e109-5444-dc84369dddce@redhat.com> <39f28782-65e8-0f52-3c8f-134a6f05788b@redhat.com> <20170324153530.GF17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <8737e24m0s.fsf@linux-m68k.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1490379329 24914 195.159.176.226 (24 Mar 2017 18:15:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:15:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Yousong Zhou , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, musl@lists.openwall.com To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: gdb-patches-return-137808-gdb-gdb-patches=m.gmane.org@sourceware.org Fri Mar 24 19:15:25 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gdb-gdb-patches@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from server1.sourceware.org ([209.132.180.131] helo=sourceware.org) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1crTkA-0005xW-RS for gdb-gdb-patches@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:15:23 +0100 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=default; b=pfCUeK6dFk87wslivYH4GWI5BqMcwz 5IoQ1LD/nH7fO3g09OFZ/PZrDZvejspiFWI//Ta/i2JBGPlSQe3nbvGOgQi/tJEU LslvlcuY7vTmnW6yvKe1X57WFgbwPCOBfZERrm/woWyREnMtBEdFxdRag4+9qAbq 3RUVtpD17EVzs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=default; bh=YdxDahpkU6ZtlVyzhzwFQoWNLfk=; b=yRoV TdT3nc4zwJIzW9tKzH8hhtICdE+f+a5BDvv7KO89xMz/6qSiS/p1NAGKcE0Iwoeu iCnathwEXnf8UhGbymR3CuNndP1jFZi1yTN7MQRriHp6JIvsXDGytfF4CVABW5KL X4IJEZQFqL11vH38Z0rd0QUrnp2mxPFVQmx5OBw= Original-Received: (qmail 64011 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2017 18:15:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Original-Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Original-Received: (qmail 60506 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2017 18:15:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-HELO: brightrain.aerifal.cx Original-Received: from 216-197-64-233.tingfiber.com (HELO brightrain.aerifal.cx) (216.197.64.233) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:15:11 +0000 Original-Received: from dalias by brightrain.aerifal.cx with local (Exim 3.15 #2) id 1crTjO-0007Pc-00; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:14:34 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8737e24m0s.fsf@linux-m68k.org> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.gdb.patches:122764 gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:11190 Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:33:55PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Mär 24 2017, Rich Felker wrote: > > > If you file a report and it's deemed a bug in the standard and > > changed, I'm happy to change this on the musl side. Just keep me > > posted on what happens. I don't have any preference on what the > > behavior "should" be here (IMO imposing a behavior when the caller has > > violated constraints like passed a wrong value for how is pointless > > anyway) but I do want to conform to the standard. > > The standard says that how must be ignored if set is NULL. The standard says in one place that it's "not significant" if "set is a null pointer", but then in another that the call "shall fail" if "the how argument is not equal to one of the defined values". The former could be interpreted either as allowing any of the 3 defined values (doesn't matter which) for how when set is null, or allowing any value at all; the latter interpretation conflicts with the normative errors section. Anyway I don't think language-lawyering this offline is productive. If anyone really cares about the behavior one way or the other, take it to the Austin Group tracker where the decision-makers will see it. Rich