lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:42:07 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb On Feb 8 2007 08:33, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >And the thing is, sometimes -Wpointer-sign-compare is just horribly >broken. For example, you cannot write a "strlen()" that doesn't >complain about "unsigned char *" vs "char *". And that is just a BUG. > >I'm continually amazed at how totally clueless some gcc warnings are. >You'd think that the people writing them are competent. And then >sometimes they show just how totally incompetent they are, by making it >impossible to use "unsigned char" arrays together with standard >functions. I generally have to agree with you about the unsigned char* vs char*. It is a problem of the C language that char can be signed and unsigned, and that people, as a result, have used it for storing "shorter_than_short_t"s. What C needs is a distinction between char and int8_t, rendering "char" an unsigned at all times basically and making "unsigned char" and "signed char" illegal types in turn. Jan -- ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists