<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<meta name="generator" content="pandoc" />
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">code{white-space: pre;}</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>On 2017-02-25 16:16, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> Le lauantaina 25. helmikuuta 2017, 15.05.21 EET Filip Roséen a écrit :</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> Just as practically impossible as memory-allocation failures.</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Are you trolling or what? Ignoring memory allocation failures leads to
undefined behaviour; it is clearly not inconsequential.</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I am not trolling. It was a serious reply in terms of likelyhood of an error from within <code>open_memstream</code>.</p>
<p>I was of course not referring to the consequences of such error, <em>well-</em> vs <em>un-defined</em>, it was merely a way of saying that the <em>“practically impossible”</em> is (in my opinion) a very poor use of wording.</p>
<p>In other words; the sentence is a further attempt to show where I stand on the matter (which, hopefully without a doubt, should be more than clear by now).</p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> (And some of them are easy to trigger with fuzzers.)</code></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>