Vincent Lefevre wrote, on 11 Sep 2024: > > On 2024-09-10 14:32:32 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open > Group wrote: > > I can see that my earlier statement was a bit misleading. There doesn't > > need to be an explicit statement that passing a null pointer is allowed, > > just something that overrides that quoted text from 2.1.1. > > > > The relevant part of 2.1.1 is of the form "unless explicitly stated > > otherwise ... the behavior is undefined". Any text that defines the > > behaviour for a null pointer is sufficient to override this. > > The case strnlen(0,0) is well defined by the strnlen description: > the result is necessarily 0. > > So it is valid, isn't it?
No. The strnlen description doesn't mention null pointers, so it doesn't override the statment about null pointers in 2.1.1. -- Geoff Clare <[email protected]> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
