[Bug libc/10699] New: The argz create routines respond differently to empty strings

argv arguments can be empty strings by specifying '' or similar.
Those empty strings are part of argz as created by argz_create().
However argz strings created by argz_create_sep() does not allow empty
strings ; they are simply ignored thus producing a argz that cannnot be
used (after some processing) to a new argv array.

--
           Summary: The argz create routines respond differently to empty
                    strings
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.8
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: libc
        AssignedTo: drepper at redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: lucien at haijen dot be
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10699

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2009-10-29 23:52 -------
The function is as it is.  If I would have known about this nuance back when I
wrote this function I most likely would have implemented as you expect it.  But
today it's too late.  There is code out there using thing function and those
programs might expect exactly the current behavior.  I cannot justify breaking
those programs.

--
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10699

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

------- Additional Comments From lucien at haijen dot be  2009-10-30 15:48 -------
Subject: Re:  The argz create routines respond differently
        to empty strings

Dear Sir

Thank you very much for making time to answer my "not really
a bug" report.
I fully agree with your justification for not modifying an
existing function. In the mean time I have written my own
version under a different name, which proved to be easy, plus
a whole set of other related functions that I now must test.

Again, many thanks from a retired but still busy C programmer.

Yours truly

L. Haijen
Antwerp, Belgium



On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:52 +0000, drepper at redhat dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2009-10-29 23:52 -------
> The function is as it is.  If I would have known about this nuance back when I
> wrote this function I most likely would have implemented as you expect it.  But
> today it's too late.  There is code out there using thing function and those
> programs might expect exactly the current behavior.  I cannot justify breaking
> those programs.
>



--


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10699

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.