Anyway my point is if Microsoft don't wanna be ISO certified, including low level memory management then it's their choice.

It's the choice also for the industry to disregard non-ISO certified companies.

That's my point. Thanks.

--
 
Phil Bouchard 
CTO
T: (819) 328-4743
E: phil_at_[hidden] | www.fornux.com
1188 rue Saint-Louis | Gatineau (Qc), J8T 2L8 Canada
Le message ci-dessus, ainsi que les documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés uniquement aux personnes identifiées et peuvent contenir des informations privilégiées, confidentielles ou ne pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire.
This communication (and/or the attachments) is intended for named recipients only and may contain privileged or confidential information which is not to be disclosed. If you received this communication by mistake please destroy all copies.
> On Feb 11, 2023, at 10:09 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> That's not paranoia. They already did killed Netscapa and Wordperfect similarly.
> 
> I'll reply to the rest later as I am not home right now.
> 
> 
> --
> 
>  
> Phil Bouchard 
> CTO
> T: (819) 328-4743
> E: phil_at_[hidden] | www.fornux.com
> 1188 rue Saint-Louis | Gatineau (Qc), J8T 2L8 Canada
> Le message ci-dessus, ainsi que les documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés uniquement aux personnes identifiées et peuvent contenir des informations privilégiées, confidentielles ou ne pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire.
> This communication (and/or the attachments) is intended for named recipients only and may contain privileged or confidential information which is not to be disclosed. If you received this communication by mistake please destroy all copies.
> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2023, at 9:32 PM, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 6:45 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> They already do partially with the "static" keywords and all the attributes.
>> 
>> Um, where? Where is there wording in the standard about the
>> interactions between `static` and shared objects/dynamic libraries? Or
>> C++-defined standard attributes that interact with them?
>> 
>> The call to the memory allocation function is a static one; as such,
>> overriding new/delete globally requires that all such code includes
>> that override. Just like if you don't include a particular function
>> overload, you can't call it.
>> 
>>> But I seriously think the standards should consider linker issues
>>> because right now nothing prevents Microsoft from blacklisting and
>>> making crash competitor's products.
>> 
>> That's some pretty deep paranoia. It's also highly misplaced.
>> 
>> If Microsoft wanted to want to "blacklisting and making crash
>> competitor's products", they have 100% of the tools that they need to
>> do that right now. They don't have to sneak in something into the
>> memory allocator; if Windows detects that your program is one it wants
>> to shut down, the OS can just yank the process. And there's nothing
>> you or the C++ committee can do to stop them.
>> 
>> It's their operating system. That's what you signed up for when you
>> wrote software for it. If you're concerned about anti-competitive
>> behavior out of them, you need a political solution, not a
>> technological one.
>> 
>>> If you have an application that is ISO certified then it you should also
>>> guarantee the low level allocation routines will never crash as well.
>> 
>> And you can. I presume that ISO certification would include looking at
>> all of the shared libraries being used by the application, yes?
>> -- 
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals