Re: Gcc and undefined behavior
previously on this list Vincent Lefevre contributed:
> > Plus, crashing in a screensaver is bad :D
>
> The sanitizers should be used only for testing / debugging, or
> possibly for critical applications where it may be better to crash
> (in a controlled way) than behave erratically with possible system
> compromission as a consequence.
I am not sure exactly what checks you are talking about but
isn't this debatable in that if it is more likely to crash early or
immediately then the bugs are more likely to be fixed and it could have
crashed later anyway at a more critical and less analysed time or led
to greater consequences or bugs present in more critical deployments.
OpenBSD catches many bugs but they are not the size of Debian which
could catch more.
Perhaps there is an argument just for testing as oppose to stable?
--
_______________________________________________________________________
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'
(Doug McIlroy)
In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd
_______________________________________________________________________
I have no idea why RTFM is used so aggressively on LINUX mailing lists
because whilst 'apropos' is traditionally the most powerful command on
Unix-like systems it's 'modern' replacement 'apropos' on Linux is a tool
to help psychopaths learn to control their anger.
(Kevin Chadwick)
_______________________________________________________________________
Reply to: