| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linux 2.6.30 exploit postedLinux 2.6.30 exploit postedPosted Jul 20, 2009 19:17 UTC (Mon) by stevenb (guest, #11536)In reply to: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted by muntyan Parent article: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted
Ah, so fact-based, the parent. Examples?
(Log in to post comments)
Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted Posted Jul 21, 2009 6:08 UTC (Tue) by stevenb (guest, #11536) [Link]
Great example. It totally justifies your quotes around "optimization" and intentionally breaks warnings.
Not.
Did you actually read the bug? Getting warnings right is hard. See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings#pro...
Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted Posted Jul 21, 2009 9:43 UTC (Tue) by muntyan (guest, #58894) [Link]
Did *you* read the bug report? Some quotes: "this is a regression", "It has never worked on the tree-ssa branch", "The 4.x compilers does not warn when using unset variables. The 3.x compilers did warn on this: ...". Gcc-3 produces better warnings, while gcc-4 gives you code which crashes 2% faster.
Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted Posted Jul 30, 2009 13:59 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
Apparently you both read the bug report and came away with different meanings of it. Now stop waving your willies at each other and have a nice cup of tea.
|
|
||||||||||||