Rich, on Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:43:22 -0400 you (Rich Felker ) wrote: > Is it really confirmed that all historical C implementations, not just > all historical POSIX ones, differ from the specification in this way? I personnally don't know much more than I posted in my question. AG tells us that musl is the only one they know about we are only aware of one (musl) that obeys a strict reading of the C standard. I don't know about historic implementations evidently. > That seems rather surprising It seems they prefer internal consistency over such a boundery case specification. > (and amusing that nobody else bothered to read the spec when > implementing). ;-) > It would be nice to make sure they're informed and in agreement on > this, if there are any others. That will be one of the difficulties with a request that comes in so late in the procedure. We will have not much data to base our decision, but for the projects where the WG14 members are implicated in one way or another. Thanks Jₑₙₛ -- :: ICube :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: deputy director :: :: Université de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::::::: ICPS :: :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est :::::::::::::::::::::::: Camus :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ☎ +33 368854536 :: :: https://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::