public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@owlfolio.org>
Cc: GNU libc development <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	 austin-group-l@opengroup.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sockaddr.3type: Document that sockaddr_storage is the API to be used
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:37:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cgetryf5sc3cn6p4ssb47pa2nivjw5vughv6pmpc6qykt3y3bd@teqf7o5uapqm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fdadcff-95a2-44fe-9453-d0200822e01e@app.fastmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:05:15PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > On 4/6/23 18:24, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> here's the updated wording that the Austin Group tried today (and we
> >> plan on starting a 30-day interpretation feedback window if there are
> >> still adjustments to be made to the POSIX wording):
> >>
> >> https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1641#c6255
> >
> > Thanks!  That wording (both paragraphs) LGTM.
> 
> If I could suggest an additional change, the focus on aliasing
> _diagnostics_ rather misses the point IMHO.  We don't just want the
> compiler to _not complain_ about accesses to sa_family_t, we want it to
> treat the accesses as _legitimate_.  So, instead of
> 
> # Additionally, the structures shall be defined in such a way that
> # these casts do not cause the compiler to produce diagnostics about
> # aliasing issues in accessing the sa_family_t member of these
> # structures when compiling conforming application (xref to XBD section
> # 2.2) source files.
> 
> may I suggest wording along the lines of
> 
> # Additionally, the structures shall be defined in such a way that
> # the compiler treats an access to the stored value of the sa_family_t
> # member of any of these structures, via an lvalue expression whose type
> # involves any other one of these structures, as permissible, despite the
> # more restrictive rules listed in ISO C section 6.5p7.

I like it as an improvement; I've added your suggestion to the POSIX
bug report as one of the comments received during the 30-day
interpretation window, to see what the other standards developers
think.

Since Issue 7 is tied to C99, and Issue 8 will be tied to C17, both of
which use the same section number despite being a different edition of
the C standard, being that specific may work.  Or, we might try
something focusing more on wording instead of document location, as
in:

Additionally, the structures shall be defined in such a way that the
compiler treats an access to the stored value of the sa_family_t
member of any of these structures, via an lvalue expression whose type
involves any other one of these structures, as permissible even if the
types involved would not otherwise be deemed compatible with the
effective type of the object ultimately being accessed.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org


  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-06 19:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-30 17:13 Alejandro Colomar
2023-03-30 19:11 ` Eric Blake
2023-04-05  0:42   ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-04-06 16:24     ` Eric Blake
2023-04-06 16:31       ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-04-06 18:05         ` Zack Weinberg
2023-04-06 19:37           ` Eric Blake [this message]
2023-04-14 16:08             ` Zack Weinberg
2023-04-21 14:58               ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-04-21 15:00                 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-04-21 15:27                   ` Eric Blake
2023-04-21 20:27                     ` [PATCH v3] sockaddr.3type: POSIX Issue 8 will solve strict-aliasing issues with these types Alejandro Colomar
2023-04-21 20:35                       ` Eric Blake

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cgetryf5sc3cn6p4ssb47pa2nivjw5vughv6pmpc6qykt3y3bd@teqf7o5uapqm \
    --to=eblake@redhat.com \
    --cc=austin-group-l@opengroup.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).