Subject: Re: lib/19638: isalpha (3) bug
To: None <>
From: None <>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 01/03/2003 17:07:58
At Sat, 4 Jan 2003 01:02:36 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Cheponis" wrote:
> Should we try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong?


The point is, since you're invoking undefined behaviour, their result
is also "correct."

NetBSD's would be equally correct if it returned 1, or exec'd emacs,

(BTW, in my opinion, the most if one wanted a truly "robust"
implementation that checked its arguments well, one would also want it
to abort on invalid arguments...  Oh, and that would also be correct.  8-)