On 06/18/2012 03:06 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
John Spencer wrote:
its not the job of the libc to make broken code happy.
i dont think its a good idea to make thousands of correct programs slower,
just that GNU guys dont have to fix one program.
Following your argumentation, we don't need
- W^X protection in the x86 hardware,
- address space layout randomization in the kernel,
- support for -fstack-protector, -fmudflag, and -fbounds-check in gcc
and libc,
- double-free checks in libc,
- function pointer encryption in libc.
where is the relation ? you are comparing apples and oranges.
--JS
