| |||||||||||||
Actually no, the idea is slightly different...Actually no, the idea is slightly different...Posted Jul 18, 2009 10:58 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Actually no, the idea is slightly different... by khim Parent article: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted
Undefined behaviour only and precisely means 'behaviour which is not
defined by the language standard'. It is a matter of QoI, tastefulness and portability matter whether the GCC devs choose to define this behaviour. There are many things that ISO C considers undefined that GCC has defined: we call them language extensions. But if GCC also doesn't define what happens, well, it's not tested, anything goes.
(Undefined behaviour isn't a magic word. It means *exactly what it says*.)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||