| |||||||||||||
Linux 2.6.30 exploit postedLinux 2.6.30 exploit postedPosted Jul 21, 2009 6:08 UTC (Tue) by stevenb (guest, #11536)In reply to: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted by muntyan Parent article: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted
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...
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||