| |||||||||||||
Glibc change exposing bugsGlibc change exposing bugsPosted Nov 15, 2010 16:43 UTC (Mon) by renox (subscriber, #23785)In reply to: Glibc change exposing bugs by neilbrown Parent article: Glibc change exposing bugs
Too late!
And memcpy should also be named as mem_unsafe_copy, but yes if you tell developers to use safe function by default and to optimize only when they can show benchmarks that the optimisation will make a difference, then yes, you'd get probably better software (if a bit slower).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||