* Siddhesh Poyarekar: > On 11/27/20 5:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I think the last part (the “bug”) is new. I welcome a consensus along >> those lines. I just want to highlight this aspect. > > Should we consider fixing behaviour if the bug manifests in a user > application and not in glibc itself? i.e. a crash because glibc > either returned the unnormal or misclassified the unnormal number?
I think in general, that's a bit like fixing buffer overflows in applications. It's just not possible with the current compilation model. So I find it difficult to come up with a general rule. The nature of these non-normal numbers is that the CPU does not produce them. I think we should make sure that glibc doesn't, either, with obvious exceptions such as memcpy. But beyond that, I don't know. > At the minimu ISTM that we should at least make the classification > consistent with gcc. Yes, I agree. Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
