> It seems to me the proper approach is to teach the tool to accept > this, and to avoid cluttering the tree with churn to work around the > tool's deficiency, unless there's actually a serious compelling > argument -- beyond a language-lawyering troll -- that (char *)NULL + 0 > is meaningfully undefined. > > We already assume, for example, that memset(...,0,...) is the same as > initialization to null pointers where the object in question is a > pointer or has pointers as subobjects. > > I think we should treat memcpy(NULL,NULL,0) similarly and tell the > tool `no, on NetBSD that really is defined and we're not interested in > hearing about theoretical nasal demons from armchair language > lawyers'.
well said. i 100% agree. these extreme edge-cases of UB that have a very clear definition don't seem to he helpful in finding any real class of bugs and only seem to be good at cluttering up working code. .mrg.
