>>> malloc(0) isn't undefined behaviour but implementation defined.
>>
>> In modern C there is no difference between those two concepts.
> Can you explain more about your view
There certainly is a difference, but in this case the practical
implications are the same: avoid malloc(0). malloc(0) lies at the high end
of a range of severity of concerns about implementation-definedness. At the
low end are things like the size of ints, which only affects applications
that may confront very large numbers. In the middle is the default
signedness of chars, which generally may be mitigated by explicit type
declarations.
For the size of ints, C offers guardrails like INT_MAX. There is no test to
discern what an error return from malloc(0) means.
Is there any other C construct that implementation-definedness renders
useless?
Doug
Hello, all.
Have you an idea where one could find the sources of the various
versions of the ex/vi editor, besides those archived at TUHS:
1BSD/ex-1.1
2.11BSD/src/ucb/ex
2.9BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex/ex2
2.9BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex/ex3
2BSD/src/ex
3BSD/usr/src/cmd/ex
4.1cBSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.2BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.3BSD-Reno/src/usr.bin/ex
4.3BSD-Tahoe/usr/src/ucb
4.3BSD-UWisc/src/ucb/ex
4.3BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.4BSD/usr/src/usr.bin/ex
4BSD/usr/src/cmd/ex
OpenSolaris_b135/cmd/vi
There include vv. 1.1, 2.13, 3.2, 3.6, and many variants of 3.7. Has
anything else been preserved to your knowledge?
It happened in September, apparently, but is only now making the rounds.
Darl McBride, known for taking everybody and his brother to court over
stolen code, has passed away.
https://fossforce.com/2024/11/once-linuxs-biggest-enemy-darl-mcbride-dies-a…
I actually remember liking SCO back in the day, before the company
leadership went dark-side. These days, we get to play with ancient unix
cuz of their license. What a topsy turvy world.
Is there a concise summary of the SCO suits and fallout out there? I've
seen a lot on the AT&T side of things, but other than having lived
through it, I've not seen much on what eventually happened and why it
all sort of just dissappeared.
Will
> From: Warner Losh
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:14PM Larry McVoy wrote:
>> The bmap implementations I saw were bit for bit identical, same code,
>> same variables, same style, same indentation. I'm 100% sure they were
>> not independent.
> They are different in 4.3BSD. They are different in 4.2BSD (but less
> different). The underlying filesystems are different on disk, so they
> routines have to be different.
That last sentence points out something important that people need to remember
in this discussion: in between 4.1 and 4.2 (technically, in 4.1B), BSD
switched to the BSD Fast File System, so I very much doubt that the low-level
(i.e. logical file block to disk block) file system code in anything after
4.1A looks much like the AT+T low-level file system code. (I have no idea how
the BSD code compares to the Linux file system code, but that's between the
Linux people, and Berkeley.)
Noel
As a bit-part expert witness for the other side of the SCO case, I saw
hundreds of pages of evidence in the form of side-by-side code
comparison. As I recall, the vast majority of highlighted
correspondences were small snippets, often rearranged. I didn't
interact with the lawyers enough to form a solid opinion about where
this stood on the spectrum of coincidence to fair use to plagiarism.
It certainly wasn't wholesale copying. I do not recall being asked to
opine on whether trade secrets had been stolen.
Apropos of rearranged snippets, one of the diff algorithms I
experimented with in the mid-70s identified rearrangements. I
abandoned it because real life code contains lots of similar lines, so
many in PDP-11 assembler programs as to suggest that these programs
are largely permutations of each other. The phenomenon is much less
common in C, but still present; witness the prevalence of code like
int i, n;
for(i=0; i<n; i++) {
The phenomenon may have been afoot in the SCO evidence.
In regard to trade secrets, I was surprised when I moved from Unix at
Bell Labs to Linux at Dartmouth and found calendar(1) to be completely
rewritten, but with logic absolutely identical to the original version
I wrote at the Labs. That was so idiosyncratic that the identity of
the two could not have been an accident.
Doug
Hi All.
For anyone who's interested, my QED archive at
https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/qed-archive has been updated. Changes
were provided by Sean Jensen.
The usenix-80-caltech subdirectory is now more complete and the README.md
points at Sean's updated QED port which now works with Unicode.
I thank him.
Arnold
So with all that has happened with the Internet Archive lately, I
do find myself a bit concerned regarding the UNIX materials that
I know to only exist there. Selfishly, this includes my own
uploads here: https://archive.org/details/@segaloco
I was curious if anyone has any suggestions on places beyond just
IA and TUHS where I could see about getting this stuff mirrored?
Unfortunately my stuff runs afoul of bitsavers's DPI requirements,
that's the only other source that immediately comes
to mind where these materials would find home. Any thoughts?
Warren, I know you had mentioned a "write only" archive you
maintain regarding materials that need to be mothballed until legal
understandings are reached, would you be comfortable with my
contributing any of my materials the Caldera license does not apply
to there?
- Matt G.