> On 25 Jul 2025, at 16:00, Niu Danny <danny...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> They have a given program, which they cannot change, but apparently can >> accept 256 kB of text in arguments, and the preferred workaround is to >> recompile the kernel. > > Only workarounds' possible. Kinda like disabling a vulnerable component > before a patch comes out. > >> >> I am not sure what your suggestion is here: There surely ought to be better >> ways to write this program, but that option seems to not be available. > > Yes, and by all mean, this program should be replaced with a better > alternative. > > This program is badly broken for its (never intended) purpose, asking the > standard > developers to alter the definition of the specs and wait for operating system > vendors > to catch up is NOT the solution.
This is also my conclusion, and it is good to see the same opinion here. In retrospect, this also makes the concerns raised on the C++ standardization list redundant. >> Anyway, I have no use for it myself, only noticed that some have raised the >> issue. > > Options are presented, I guess this concludes this (somewhatly?) off-topic > discussion here. Indeed.
