On 11/17/2010 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Because it's NOT a bug in glibc, because what glibc does is CORRECT, because
>> it actually POINTS OUT bugs in applications which are portability issues and
>> can hurt future optimization opportunities (regardless of whether the
>> current implementation really is faster than before or not) and, most
>> importantly, because it is NOT our job to work around bugs in proprietary
>> software!
>
> Pretty sure it doesn't point them out. It just breaks them. Could you
> shout a little less? I'm already hungover and I haven't even been to bed
> yet.
Obviously we should make glibc check the ranges and abort() with a snarky note.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
