On Mon Jul 07 00:13:20 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sunday 06 July 2008 22:17:12 Andrew Johnson via RT wrote: > > > On Sun Jul 06 11:03:37 2008, japhb wrote: > > > > Better yet, we should replace the inherently insecure quicksort > > > algorithm (insecure in the "vulnerable to algorithmic attack" sense) > > > with a more secure mergesort like perl5 uses. IIRC, perl5's mergesort > > > is also carefully crafted to be as sensible as possible in the face of > > > insane compare functions .... > > > No objections here, but until that's available the attached patch stops > > the segfault from occurring with the existing quicksort function. > > Agreed. > > Thanks, applied with a test from the original message as r29115. The test > should be robust enough in the face of algorithmic changes to continue to > pass as long as the code fails to segfault. > > -- c >
Since the code in question is no longer segfaulting, I'm marking this as resolved.
