On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David A. Wheeler
dwhee...@dwheeler.com wrote:
Jim Meyering said:
Did you realize that several GNU projects now enable virtually
every gcc warning that is available (even including those that
are new in the upcoming gcc-4.8, for folks that use bleeding edge
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
If a project does not observe proper preprocessor macros for a
configuration, a project could fall victim to runtime assertions and
actually DoS itself after the assert calls abort(). The ISC's DNS
The falling victim to runtime assertions is the same
Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com writes:
If a project does not observe proper preprocessor macros for a
configuration, a project could fall victim to runtime assertions and
actually DoS itself after the assert calls abort(). The ISC's DNS server
comes to mind (confer: there are CVE's
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com writes:
If a project does not observe proper preprocessor macros for a
configuration, a project could fall victim to runtime assertions and
actually DoS itself after the assert
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The falling victim to runtime assertions is the same as falling victim to
a bug. It is not necessarily true that removing the assertion is better
than suffering from the unhandled bug. Once again this is a
program/situation-specific issue.
Well, I
On 12/20/2012 01:32 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Posix asserts
are useless during development under a debugger because the eventually
lead to SIGTERM. A much better approach in practice is to SIGTRAP.
I didn't follow all that message, but this part doesn't appear
to be correct. In POSIX, when
Having seen the message that a release might be imminent, I had a look
at the patches for autoconf in
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/devel/autoconf/patches
so the attached might want to go in...
Cheers,
Patrick
From ffc83effa49340314d71ff266d94b512e1f00e3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
On 12/20/2012 02:51 AM, Patrick Welche wrote:
Having seen the message that a release might be imminent, I had a look
at the patches for autoconf in
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/devel/autoconf/patches
so the attached might want to go in...
+++
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:31:43AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
Or maybe the problem is that our test for ac_cv_func_alloca_works
doesn't match the documentation, since it is only doing:
Indeed - the version in the documentation wouldn't need the patch...
I'll just check this...
Cheers,
Patrick
