> I think your paper's example should NOT use abs(), but instead some
> other function (whether you merely rename your existing example to
> 'myabs', or pick a different function which DOES have well-defined errno
> semantics right now), precisely because abs() does NOT currently have
>
On 08/08/2018 07:19 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
We've just had a discussion on whether standard-compliant abs() (which
is currently undefined on INT_MIN) should be permitted and/or required
to have well-defined behavior
I failed to provide a summary to my thoughts:
I think your paper's example
On 08/08/2018 05:24 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v=forums=MTEwODAzNzI2MjM1OTc0MjE3MjkBMDIyMjg0NDY2NTc4NzYyMDQzODYBX1RlYjRCNjREQUFKATAuMQFpc29jcHAub3JnAXYy=0
Comments are welcome, particularly on how best to offer POSIX functions
in a form both binary compatible
