Dave Korn wrote:
On 23 June 2007 22:53, Brooks Moses wrote:
Indeed. It would be interesting to confirm whether or not a copy of gcc
bootstrapped with a non-gcc compiler matched byte-for-byte with a copy
of gcc bootstrapped from gcc. Not so much to look for intentional
things like this, but to
Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed. It would be interesting to confirm whether or not a copy of
> gcc bootstrapped with a non-gcc compiler matched byte-for-byte with a
> copy of gcc bootstrapped from gcc. Not so much to look for
> intentional things like this, but to see whether t
On 23 June 2007 22:53, Brooks Moses wrote:
>
> Indeed. It would be interesting to confirm whether or not a copy of gcc
> bootstrapped with a non-gcc compiler matched byte-for-byte with a copy
> of gcc bootstrapped from gcc. Not so much to look for intentional
> things like this, but to see whet
> I tested it on powerpc64-linux with the default option
> --with-cpu=default32.
Ah, so this is a 32-bit compiler like on sparc64-linux?
--
Eric Botcazou
Robert Dewar wrote:
OK, interesting, thanks for info, I had always thought that this
was purely conceptual.
One thing (which Erik didn't mention) that I noticed in the articles is
that Ken said that in his implementation he also hacked the disassembler
to cover up the evidence.
Of course t
Erik Trulsson wrote:
And reading Ken's ACM paper (http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/) certainly
gives me the impression that he is talking about a real program, not just a
purely hypothetical case:
[...]
I would like to present to you the cutest program I ever wrote. I
will do this in thr
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 04:36:02PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Erik Trulsson wrote:
>
> >Ken Thompson (one of the original creators of Unix) *did* put such a hack
> >into
> >their C compiler which would automatically add backdoor code when it
> >compiled the 'login' program. This was many years
Erik Trulsson wrote:
Ken Thompson (one of the original creators of Unix) *did* put such a hack into
their C compiler which would automatically add backdoor code when it
compiled the 'login' program. This was many years ago and AFAIK the hacked
Unix version was never released into the wild.
Ar
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Mark Shinwell wrote:
>> Do you think it should be the case that, at the point below, _any_ reload
>> with reg_rtx corresponding to a hard register should have the relevant
>> bit set in reload_spill_index?
>
> I think so. I'm attaching a patch below. It appears to have no
Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/06/2007 21:50:57:
> > I'm going to try the 64-bit variant.
>
> SPARC/Solaris 64-bit is OK, as well as IA-64/Linux according to:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-06/msg01044.html
>
> Do you test PowerPC 32-bit or should I try a build on
> I'm going to try the 64-bit variant.
SPARC/Solaris 64-bit is OK, as well as IA-64/Linux according to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-06/msg01044.html
Do you test PowerPC 32-bit or should I try a build on Darwin or AIX?
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 08:35:19AM -0700, krith htirk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been told that a developer of gcc, in the early stages, put a
> security hole that allowed him complete access to any computer running
> unix, as gcc was included in unix, and that it stayed that way until he
> decided to
Hi,
I've been told that a developer of gcc, in the early stages, put a security
hole that allowed him complete access to any computer running unix, as gcc was
included in unix, and that it stayed that way until he decided to tell everyone
and patch it.
I don't believe him, but I couldn't fin
> Maybe the problem will arise on other platforms and we'll be able to debug
> it.
SPARC/Solaris 32-bit is OK. I'm going to try the 64-bit variant.
--
Eric Botcazou
14 matches
Mail list logo
