We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
copy, copy_nonoverlapping and write_bytes currently accept bad pointers when the size is 0, because libstd relies on this.
copy
copy_nonoverlapping
write_bytes
I think we should enforce the check, and fix libstd.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is a point of debate in C, too, isn't it? Do we have something conclusive to rely on, and enforce?
Sorry, something went wrong.
It's UB in C, but compilers do not dare exploiting that in general.
I wrote to llvm-dev last year and was unable to get a definite answer out of them, see this mailing list thread.
So, the safest thing to do is to say that it's UB for us...
I just opened a bug on their side to maybe get something moving: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38583
No branches or pull requests
copy
,copy_nonoverlapping
andwrite_bytes
currently accept bad pointers when the size is 0, because libstd relies on this.I think we should enforce the check, and fix libstd.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: