gh-133157: remove usage of _Py_NO_SANITIZE_UNDEFINED in pyexpat
#135346
+96
−29
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…pat` Co-Authored-By: Bénédikt Tran <[email protected]>
|
I think it's a clean alternative and doesn't need C11 (though I'm not entirely sure my solution needs C11). At least, your solution doesn't. |
picnixz
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
Co-authored-by: Bénédikt Tran <[email protected]>
picnixz
reviewed
Jun 19, 2025
picnixz
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2025
Misc/NEWS.d/next/C_API/2025-06-19-12-47-18.gh-issue-133157.1WA85f.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…85f.rst Co-authored-by: Bénédikt Tran <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
AFAIK, to avoid undefined behavior, a function needs to be called via a function pointer of the correct type.
For storage, it can be cast to any other function type. It just needs to be cast back, when retrieved.
So, we should be able to avoid the union in #134050... but not C function for each setter (or at least one for each type, but
SETTER_WRAPPERseems clearer).@picnixz: I didn't test this all the way; will continue tomorrow