Re: glibc misc/sys/cdefs.h nonull - typo in comment

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Paul Eggert:

> The April 2023 working draft of C23 has adjusted the wording to be the 
> following, and I expect POSIX to follow suit eventually. Notice the new 
> restrictions:
>
> "If an argument to a function has an invalid value (such as a value 
> outside the domain of the function, or a pointer outside the address 
> space of the program, or a null pointer, or a pointer to non-modifiable 
> storage when the corresponding parameter is not const-qualified) or a 
> type (after default argument promotion) not expected by a function with 
> a variable number of arguments, the behavior is undefined.
>
> "If a function argument is described as being an array, the pointer 
> actually passed to the function shall have a value such that all address 
> computations and accesses to objects (that would be valid if the pointer 
> did point to the first element of such an array) are in fact valid.[210]
>
> "[210] This includes, for example, passing a valid pointer that points 
> one-past-the-end of an array along with a size of 0, or using any valid 
> pointer with a size of 0."

I'm not sure if these are new restrictions.  Doesn't this make
previously undefined behavior when calling strncmp with shorter
strings defined?