From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F29A3858D20 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:57:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7F29A3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670011065; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=nRcZ5SebFeHowmD0JOR5amDLHG+O1oMJWtPC3kWE7WY=; b=KhJJR5v/l/E52Ar6k5bxCB8rSly/m/X9+joEnti15Z0tjiuaSZIwOEysPG2kRm5Lr3UF+1 s6nwTKIvZ+NmBQ3lwGcmIXh6LmpnEUXTp5gVCw7rxwetI9VmHOAMvtwMsGy2yWLpe6rFGh etWgK9S0wSIiJfVvWFagg/iqz0kTs44= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-653-gdsnwExBP9q9jKCVUz8Ocg-1; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 14:57:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: gdsnwExBP9q9jKCVUz8Ocg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F2B83813F36; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:57:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com (unknown [10.22.8.183]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8A2111E3FA; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:57:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2B2JvRJS1114939; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:57:27 -0500 From: DJ Delorie To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: sam@gentoo.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Supporting malloc_usable_size In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 14:57:27 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Siddhesh Poyarekar writes: > That sounds reasonable. I wonder if the last statement could be taken > as a guarantee of validity up to a certain point (i.e. another call to a > malloc family API); should that be simply "The returned value is only > valid at the time of the call."? Good point. Agreed.