lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:49:33 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Rasmus Villemoes' <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <>,
        Martin Uecker <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Rikard Falkeborn <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        "" <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] linux/const.h: Explain how __is_constexpr() works

From: Rasmus Villemoes
> Sent: 01 February 2022 13:06
> > + * - The C standard defines an "integer constant expression" as different
> > + *   from a "null pointer constant" (an integer constant 0 pointer).
> I don't see the point of this bullet. Yes, an ICE is a distinct concept
> from a null pointer constant, obviously. One is defined in terms of the
> other - and your parenthesis is not an accurate paraphrase of the
> definition of a null pointer constant.

>From what I remember a "null pointer constant" is in "integer constant
expression with value 0 cast to a pointer type".
So (void *)(1-1) is just as valid as (void *)0.

Not sure any of it is relevant here.


Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists