Re: non-standard const-preserving string APIs

On 18/05/26 15:17, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2026, 1:19 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 17/05/26 10:59, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>     > Hi Adhemerval,
>     >
>     > On 2026-05-17T09:22:41-0300, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On 16/05/26 15:15, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>     >>> Hi!
>     >>>
>     >>> I'm working on documenting the recent API change of strchr(3) et al.
>     >>> to adapt to C23.  While doing that, I've realized that the related APIs
>     >>> that are not standardized by ISO C, such as memrchr(3), have not been
>     >>> changed consistently with their relatives.  Has this been discussed?
>     >>>
>     >>> I think the inconsistency might be dangerous.  Should we change the
>     >>> other string functions accordingly?
>     >> I think it is reasonable to support const-preserving to the GNU interfaces as
>     >> well. Are you preparing a patch?
>     >
>     > Yup, I will.  Thanks!
>     I will try to take a look, but I recall from previous weekly calls that Florian
>     has raised objection that this does not solve the overflow issue (not without
>     further extra changes).
> 
> 
> I'm having trouble finding messages that seem relevant: <https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/?q=memrchr+f%3AFlorian <https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/?q=memrchr+f%3AFlorian>> only turns up a few messages, most of them patches; I'm working from the assumption that Florian does not exclusively use patch descriptions to convey such information? Perhaps it was on another list, or another function was mentioned, or wildcards were used? (Or it was somebody else's opinion you were thinking of? Or public-inbox doesn't go that far back?)
> 
> Can you find the message?
> 
> (Or I guess we could wait for Florian to chime in ...)
> 

Sorry if I was being confusing, I was replying to the PS:

  P.S.:  Adhemerval, would you mind having a look at my other recent patch
  set?  It was 'Add [v]aprintf(3)'.  The message-ID was:

	  Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Not for this proposal itself. 

And Florian's remarks can be found on the previous version [1]. He add a bit
more on the weekly call some weeks ago, I don't recall the context in full.

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-March/176018.html