Re: Packaging of static libraries

[Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@openwall.com>]

On 2016-04-13 17:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-04-13 12:40:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre writes ("Re: Packaging of static libraries"):
> > > Note that by default, shared libraries would still be used, so that
> > > this would affect only users with specific applications, who would
> > > want to optimize as much as possible.
> >
> > This assumption, that someone using static libraries wants to
> > "optimizse as much as possible" (ie, that they would prefer a fast
> > non-working program to a slow working one) is completely unfounded.
>
> For libraries with a good testsuite (good coverage...) and checked
> with an UB sanitizer, the program would be working. At least the
> remaining bugs should not be related to UB.

Unfortunately UBSan is quite limited, e.g., it doesn't check for 
violations of strict aliasing rules. And boundary checks are very 
limited. In particular UBSan doesn't replace ASan at all.

--
Alexander Cherepanov