On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 12:03, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Jonathan Wakely: > > > Vitaly, it looks like you didn't respond to this. I'm also curious why > > this change would lead to crashes. Are we missing something? > > I've seen cases where access to uninitialized data was fine as long as > the memory location was never zero, something that was always true for > how GCC compiled the program at the time. Ah, so uninitialized pointers that were non-zero, and so reading from some arbitrary mapped page. If the pointer gets initialized to zero reading from it would be a segfault, because the zero page isn't mapped. That seems like an improvement, and worth finding and fixing the code. "Maintainers should not have to fix bugs in their packages" seems like a totally bogus argument to me. > > But I most say that I find the other direction more likely (as in, the > program is fine because it works correctly on Fedora). _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
