From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12626
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: u-uy74@aetey.se
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Re: #define __MUSL__ in features.h
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:16:11 +0100
Message-ID: <20180315201611.GI17373@example.net>
References: <CAFdMc-3JufPfXXYwn5vDV5+5PL7ZBjayvbA4yLqjNR8awp6VhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180315183939.GI1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAN19L9H=fj2e6S53URq3Gw7yBCi9ZC8Z_76aRSuoMgJADk1G7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180315185358.GJ1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAFdMc-0TQceAKH28wtAUxMoh6UBoynb_=85Qrrh-G-6n1R0tQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFdMc-1Htd+DvFbLLFSJQ7fEE0nt5GSHF0E9A=Ymwft_F7Y_fg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
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 1521144906 30047 195.159.176.226 (15 Mar 2018 20:15:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:15:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-12640-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 15 21:15:02 2018
Return-path: <musl-return-12640-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-12640-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1ewZHC-0007j4-KG
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:15:02 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 6065 invoked by uid 550); 15 Mar 2018 20:17:06 -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>
Original-Received: (qmail 6047 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2018 20:17:06 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h=
	in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
	:content-type:content-type:mime-version:references:message-id
	:subject:subject:from:from:date:date; s=20140703; t=1521145014;
	 x=1522959415; bh=lxJPkO5GfNtjJSkpo+pEXRQKP3avxeofKl6sL0PgXd0=; b=
	qq4Dlf26Fksg4imJR+cb2J7WnpSJh5+VvifbqEpGf3KRcVmOGUoXS4OxgR5UCdNq
	J1UaGToQKRbirbIdVCPm2j3yXWvQDSYtcEMKwGYcdblNI4gr1peok6tDR9EHZ48Y
	faEm57Nlb07zEAyxM3846ZVIBxfEVARehsX5+z8YIvE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFdMc-1Htd+DvFbLLFSJQ7fEE0nt5GSHF0E9A=Ymwft_F7Y_fg@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12626
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12626>

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 04:13:44PM -0300, dgutson . wrote:
> Just to add: the code doesn't not comply with MISRA 2004 because it
> violates 6.10.3. IOW, at least this issue turns musl MISRA non-compliant.

According to some researchers (Delft University of Technology, 2008)

"... makes it possible that adherence to the MISRA standard as a whole
would have made the software less reliable. This observation is consistent
with Hatton’s earlier assessment of the MISRA C 2004 standard [10]."

Musl does not aim for the MISRA conformance. That's good.

Regards,
Rune