search for: standardese

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:57:17AM -0700, Reid Kleckner wrote: > Why should memset / memcpy be attribute nonnull? Is there standardese that > supports that? The generic entry text of the standard section. IMO this is a standard bug and someone should *please* get it fixed. It is ridiculous that zero sized operations are considered UB. Joerg

...quot; per-se because it is outside the scope of the language specification. But it does describes it in terms of having a hidden name which is "unique" to the translation unit, and under the "as if" rule, internal linkage is a common convention for achieving this. This is just Standardese for dealing with what compiler implementers typically handle as "internal linkage" anyway; at the same time, the use of 'static' for this purpose was deprecated. This is specifically stated in C++98 section 7.3.1.1 and unnamed namespaces are still similarly defined in C++17 (Work...

...the scope of the language specification. But it does describes it > in terms of having a hidden name which is "unique" to the translation > unit, and under the "as if" rule, internal linkage is a common convention > for achieving this. > > > > This is just Standardese for dealing with what compiler implementers > typically handle as "internal linkage" anyway; at the same time, the use > of 'static' for this purpose was deprecated. This is specifically stated > in C++98 section 7.3.1.1 and unnamed namespaces are still similarly > de...

This weekend, I got an email from Nuno Lopes informing me that UBSAN now paid attention to attribute(nonnull), and he was having some problems with it going off when using libc++. I did some investigation, and found that he was exactly right - there were places (deep inside the vector code, for example) which called std::memcpy(null, null, 0) - which is definitely UB. In an ideal world, our C

...age specification. But it does >> describes it in terms of having a hidden name which is "unique" to >> the translation unit, and under the "as if" rule, internal linkage is >> a common convention for achieving this. >> > >> > This is just Standardese for dealing with what compiler >> > implementers >> typically handle as "internal linkage" anyway; at the same time, the >> use of 'static' for this purpose was deprecated. This is >> specifically stated in C++98 section 7.3.1.1 and unnamed namespace...

...gt;> describes it in terms of having a hidden name which is "unique" to > >>> the translation unit, and under the "as if" rule, internal linkage is > >>> a common convention for achieving this. > >>> > > >>> > This is just Standardese for dealing with what compiler > >>> > implementers > >>> typically handle as "internal linkage" anyway; at the same time, the > >>> use of 'static' for this purpose was deprecated. This is > >>> specifically stated in C++98 sect...

...ms of having a hidden name which is "unique" to >>>>>> the translation unit, and under the "as if" rule, internal linkage is >>>>>> a common convention for achieving this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just Standardese for dealing with what compiler >>>>>>> implementers >>>>>> typically handle as "internal linkage" anyway; at the same time, the >>>>>> use of 'static' for this purpose was deprecated. This is >>>>>> specif...