Lisandro Dalcin, 02.11.2013 12:09:
> On 1 November 2013 23:47, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> On 1 November 2013 21:53, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Erm - interesting. I looked through the code lines above and couldn't find
>>> anything that looked suspicious. I hope I used the same source version as
>>> yo
On 1 November 2013 23:47, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 1 November 2013 21:53, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> Erm - interesting. I looked through the code lines above and couldn't find
>> anything that looked suspicious. I hope I used the same source version as
>> you did (latest master?). Maybe I was
On 1 November 2013 21:53, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> Erm - interesting. I looked through the code lines above and couldn't find
> anything that looked suspicious. I hope I used the same source version as
> you did (latest master?). Maybe I was just blinded by macros, but what I
> saw looked rather r
Lisandro Dalcin, 01.11.2013 14:52:
> On 1 November 2013 15:55, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> On 31 October 2013 20:25, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> I just came across this paper:
>>>
>>> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf
>>>
>>> They describe an analysis tool that checks C code for bugs
On 1 November 2013 15:55, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 31 October 2013 20:25, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just came across this paper:
>>
>> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf
>>
>> They describe an analysis tool that checks C code for bugs that exploit
>> undefined beha
On 31 October 2013 20:25, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just came across this paper:
>
> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf
>
> They describe an analysis tool that checks C code for bugs that exploit
> undefined behaviour and that are thus up to the mercy of compiler
> assump
