Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:47 AM Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:37 PM Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote:
Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote: >> >> noloader@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu hyc@symas.com wrote: >>>> >>>> noloader@gmail.com wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an >>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many >>>>> tangential problems. >>>> >>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary >>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing >>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. >>> >>> I don't believe this is correct. >>> >>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? >> >> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. >> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already >> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is >> "non-portable" is not an issue. > > The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. > > Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use > OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs > and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. > > That's a big problem for testing a QA folks.
Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs.
They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are Undefined Behavior.
Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug.
The C standard does specify the behavior. It falls clearly in Undefined Behavior.
The fact a behavior is undefined does not make it illegal.
A program with undefined behavior is, by definition, and illegal program.
This is pure nonsense. You realize, don't you, that the C spec has no definition of threads? All multithreaded programs are using undefined behavior. And yet here we are, using threads for over 2 decades.
The gcc/clang folks have their heads up their asses. They've deliberately misinterpreted the spec claiming undefined behaviors are forbidden, supposedly to enable essential optimizations. Most of which only apply to obscure corner cases in compiler benchmark suites, that nobody in the real world ever benefits from.
-
hyc＠symas.com