Re: Processed: 008_fix_xgetpw_macro.diff breaks Xlib API.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:28:24AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:51:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Now, I'll grant that large parts of X11 predate the C standards, but
> > that's no excuse for ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't
> > exist. There should be a plan in place for dealing with this sort of
> > thing.
> OK, so let me dictate something on behalf of the XSF and X upstream and
> make existing, long-accepted practice absolutely clear:
Let me repeat, "long-accepted practice" is no excuse for ignoring the
problem or pretending it doesn't exist. (And it may be long-accepted,
but it's not very widely accepted, or the ISO C committees wouldn't
have forbidden it.)
> The use of a preceding underscore in functions, macros, variable names
> and/or other symbols in X code denotes internalisation,
What part of "this code is relying on undefined behavior" don't you
understand?
> and MUST NOT be depended on by any other library.
I agree, depending on undefined behavior is foolish. Both outside *and*
inside of X.
So technically, what we have here is two bugs. One against OpenMotif
for depending on X internal symbols (symbols with mandatorily
undefined behavior, at that). And one against X upstream for code
with undefined behavior.
After fifteen years(!) there should be a plan for dealing with this
sort of thing! I'm not blaming you, I know you're not responsible,
but geeze! Even the BSDs only took five or six years to terms with
ISO C, and they started out convinced it was a AT&T plot! :)
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: