[PATCH v1] Remove 'restrict' from 'nptr' in strtol(3)-like functions

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 20:47, Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 08:38:15PM GMT, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 20:28, Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 06:30:50PM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, dem 05.07.2024 um 17:24 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 17:02, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 17:53 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > > > > At least, I hope there's consensus that while current GCC doesn't warn
> > > > > > > about this, ideally it should, which means it should warn for valid uses
> > > > > > > of strtol(3), which means strtol(3) should be fixed, in all of ISO,
> > > > > > > POSIX, and glibc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It **shouldn't**.  strtol will only violate restrict if it's wrongly
> > > > > > implemented, or something dumb is done like "strtol((const char*) &p,
> > > > > > &p, 0)".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See my previous reply.
> > >
> > > That's not right.  See my reply to yours, Xi.  The restrict in
> > >
> > >         char **endptr
> > >
> > > already prevents calls such as strtol(x, x, 0).
> >
> > That seems to contradict footnote 153 in C23.
>
> Did you mean a different footnote number?

No.

>
> Here's 153 in N3047:

That draft is nearly two years old.

>
> 153) An implementation can delay the choice of which integer type until
>      all enumeration constants have been seen.
>
> which seems completely unrelated.

Because you're looking at a draft from nearly two years ago. Try N3220.