On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 21:28:15 +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Given that our implementation chooses to use-after-free (as it is > permitted to) if the memory becomes invalid, i prefer the Theo's > strong wording "must persist" to the possibly less discouraging > "unspecified" - foremost, we are documenting *our* implementation. > > Regarding changes of the content, i consider it friendly to mention > that it is unspecified - otherwise, people might mistakenly assume > that our behaviour were required by POSIX.
This reads fine to me. We call out a similar issue in putenv(3). - todd
