Web page additon
Hi, On the web page: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html For the "SGI" line, you may also add Nekochan: http://www.nekochan.net/downloads.php Nekochan has newer versions of GNU software than the SGI site has. Thanks, Walter Spector ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
4.3.0 build report
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-4.3.0$ ./config.guess sparc-sun-solaris2.11 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-build/gcc$ ./xgcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.11 Configured with: ../gcc-4.3.0/configure --with-mpfr=/usr/local Thread model: posix gcc version 4.3.0 (GCC) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-build/gcc$ ./cc1 --version GNU C (GCC) version 4.3.0 (sparc-sun-solaris2.11) compiled by GNU C version 4.3.0, GMP version 4.2.2, MPFR version 2.3.1. GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072 Built 'core' only. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a SunOS host2 5.11 snv_79a sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R Solaris Kicked-off with: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.11/3.4.3/specs Configured with: /gates/sfwnv/builds/sfwnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-as --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --without-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++,f77,objc --enable-shared Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.3 (csl-sol210-3_4-20050802) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#162289
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:25AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: Robert> To me, the whole notion of this vulnerability node is flawed Robert> in that respect. You can write a lengthy and useful book on Robert> pitfalls in C that must be avoided, but I see no reason to Robert> turn such a book into a cert advisory, let alone pick out a Robert> single arbitrary example on a particular compiler! I think that comment is absolutely correct. The R in CERT is "Response" (at least it used to be; I can't find an expansion on their web site...). They're responding to a problem that was reported to them, and alerting others to the problem. We can argue about the details, but not about the need to respond. But surely they are not in the general business of responding to comments of the form: "I have an incorrect C program that is undefined by the standard, and it did not behave as I expected it to!" If so, I can imagine lots more comments! They can respond, but the response should be "This program is incorrect C, and its semantics are not defined by C, security critical programs should always avoid use of such constructs." End of (canned) response Somehow implying that the commpiler is at fault for not providing expected semantics for programs where the programmer has no right to expect anything is technically unsound and confusing. Yes, it is often the case that incorrect programs will do what is expected (whatever that may be) one day, and not the next day. That is what undefined is about!
[tuples] Mainline merge @134692
Bootstrapped on C and Fortran on i686. Diego.
