Talk:C standard library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Error handling[edit]

A bit about error handling was removed saying it was glibc specific. It does mention glibc but the problem is general with the C standard library. It seems very odd to me that there is not more about the problems of error handling. The problems of thread safe handling should also be dealt with in this context, particularly in how it affects the handling of errno. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Unlike its sibling articles GNU C Library and uClibc, this article does not mention any licence? Why is that? Swenkman (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an interface rather than a specific implementation. Interfaces aren't covered by copyright. — Vano 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the buffer overflow vulnerabilities[edit]

I noticed that this section does not mention secured alternatives to vulnerable functions in the C std lib. Since this list is relatively long and fairly well documented, I think it would be useful to create a table in this section with the families of vulnerable functions, a summary of their specific vulnerabilities, and preferred functions. A starter list:

  • strcpy vs. strncpy (vs. strlcpy)
  • strcat vs. strncat (vs. strlcat)
  • sprintf vs. snprintf, vsprintf vs. vsnprintf
  • gets and scanf vs. fgets
  • strtok vs. strtok_r could also be discussed in the next subsection, on thread unsafe functions, for example

ozhu (talk·contribs) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be good additions to the C standard library § Buffer overflow vulnerabilities and C standard library § Threading problems, vulnerability to race conditions sections, and you're more than welcome to edit the article. Of course, as we know it should be backed with a few references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove drive-by tagging by three-edit one-day anon IP[edit]

[1]MaxEnt 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Three-edit one-day anon" isn't a valid reason (this could be anyone who edited from an uncommon location). But the fact that there's nothing clearly "misleading" and no clarification is. — Vano 00:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, IP addresses are human too, but the hatnote wasn't appropriate; I'd like to know what looked so misleading? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

About subarticles (e.g. C mathematical functions)[edit]

There are links to a site called (and almost all subarticles has those links) and it looks like WP:SOAP and I think (for example) the link to [2] should be replaced with [3] or [4]. What do you think? --betseg (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the background but a quick look shows is pretty good. By the way, WP:SOAP is referring to advocacy (arguing, for example, in favor of a particular political outlook). I guess you are suggesting the website is being promoted (WP:PROMO). I don't know, but evidence for that would be if a small number of editors were focusing on adding that link. Issues such as whether a link is spam are normally discussed at WP:ELN whereas there might be more attention to which is the best C reference at WT:COMP, with a link to the discussion at Talk:C (programming language) and here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC) is "at top" or "near top" of C function searches on google, just like Wikipedia, so they can't be all bad. I've used those links and their information is pretty good. I like how they state the section number for each C/C++ specification. • SbmeirowTalk • 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe the site is at top because Wikipedia has a lot of links to the site? That's how Google works. --betseg (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The engine automatically adds rel="nofollow" to every external link to prevent search engines from considering them in ranking - specifically to discourage this kind of "promotion". Though I agree that a site shall be judged solely by its content rather than position in a search result. — Vano 10:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think {{man}} would be the perfect thing to use.--betseg (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)