Home/ Questions/Q 87675
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-10T22:26:24+00:00

The ISO C committee ( ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG14 ) has published TR 24731-1 and is

  • 0

The ISO C committee (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG14) has published TR 24731-1 and is working on TR 24731-2:

TR 24731-1: Extensions to the C Library Part I: Bounds-checking interfaces

WG14 is working on a TR on safer C library functions. This TR is oriented towards modifying existing programs, often by adding an extra parameter with the buffer length. The latest draft is in document N1225. A rationale is in document N1173. This is to become a Technical Report type 2.

TR 24731-2: Extensions to the C Library – Part II: Dynamic allocation functions

WG14 is working on a TR on safer C library functions. This TR is oriented towards new programs using dynamic allocation instead of an extra parameter for the buffer length. The latest draft is in document N1337. This is to become a Technical Report type 2.

Questions

  • Do you use a library or compiler with support for the TR24731-1 functions?
  • If so, which compiler or library and on which platform(s)?
  • Did you uncover any bugs as a result of fixing your code to use these functions?
  • Which functions provide the most value?
  • Are there any that provide no value or negative value?
  • Are you planning to use the library in the future?
  • Are you tracking the TR24731-2 work at all?
Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. I have been a vocal critic of these TRs since their inception (when it was a single TR) and would never use them in any of my software. They mask symptoms instead of addressing causes and it is my opinion that if anything they will have a negative impact on software design as they provide a false sense of security instead of promoting existing practices that can accomplish the same goals much more effectively. I am not alone, in fact I am not aware of a single major proponent outside of the committee developing these TRs.

    I use glibc and as such know that I will be spared having to deal with this nonsense, as Ulrich Drepper, lead maintainer for glibc, said about the topic:

    The proposed safe(r) ISO C library fails to address to issue completely. … Proposing to make the life of a programmer even harder is not going to help. But this is exactly what is proposed. … They all require more work to be done or are just plain silly.

    He goes on to detail problems with a number of the proposed functions and has elsewhere indicated that glibc would never support this.

    The Austin Group (responsible for maintaining POSIX) provided a very critical review of the TR, their comments and the committee responses available here. The Austin Group review does a very good job detailing many of the problems with the TR so I won’t go into individual details here.

    So the bottom line is: I don’t use an implementation that supports or will support this, I don’t plan on ever using these functions, and I see no positive value in the TR. I personally believe that the only reason the TR is still alive in any form is because it is being pushed hard by Microsoft who has recently proved very capable of getting things rammed though standards committees despite wide-spread opposition. If these functions are ever standardized I don’t think they will ever become widely used as the proposal has been around for a few years now and has failed to garner any real community support.

    • 0