On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:38:58 -0700 Matthew Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + char static_buffer[64]; > > > I'm trying to work out what protects static_buffer? > > One of us must be having a brain cramp because it looks to me like the > buffer doesn't need protection -- it's on the stack. It's probably me > but I'm just not seeing how this use is unsafe.. doh. Well it had me going... > Uh, it is on stack. It doesn't use the C keyword "static". It's just > poorly-named. That depends upon one's objectives in choosing a name ;) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
