ack on .o
files)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libffi
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nigelenki at comcast dot net
http://g
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nigelenki at comcast dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28328
ReportedBy: nigelenki at comcast dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28334
--- Comment #2 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 02:43 ---
The program may be on an end user system that A) has insufficient debugging
data compiled in (though I'd imagine you know what function it's in anyway); or
B) has an end user that can't/won't debu
--- Comment #4 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 03:09 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If an end user gets a stack smash failure, they should report the bug to the
> developer and have the developer fix it.
> This is what is normally done for anyother bug, why sho
--- Comment #2 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 03:27 ---
And the developer is going to debug a program nice and slow when those obscure,
hard to trigger bugs come along.
I was just toying with metasploit the other day. Threw an exploit at Windows
to get me a remote VNC
--- Comment #5 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 04:44 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> See bug #28328 comment #5 on why this should be closed as WONTFIX/INVALID or
> the likes.
>
Eh close it WONTFIX because it's not gcc's job. Like I said, the stack s
--- Comment #8 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 04:56 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Thank you, I see the problem, there's a patch attached. Your distribution
> > should have a new version some time in a couple days.
>
--- Comment #12 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 05:49 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> That is just a simple (obvious) example, you seem to not understand how real
> code looks like. You might instead have:
>
> int f(int a,
--- Comment #14 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 06:25 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > (In reply to comment #8)
> > >
> >
...
> >
> > You make the assumption that
--- Comment #16 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-07-11 07:08 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
...
> > Yes but now he has a limited number of code paths to go wrong on.
>
> That is not true. he just knows the last function and not
RMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nigelenki at comcast dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24292
--- Comment #1 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2005-10-09 23:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=9949)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9949&action=view)
the dot-i file thingy you guys wanted
the thingy that appeared in a completely different directory than rel
P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nigelenki at comcast dot net
GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29595
--- Comment #1 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-10-25 20:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=12492)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12492&action=view)
decrypt_1.2.c
C source file, there's a big block that says "GCC MISCOMPILATION" above the
--- Comment #4 from nigelenki at comcast dot net 2006-10-25 21:42 ---
Issue was passing an unsigned long int to a %i instead of %li format specifier
in printf(). I didn't know my C library altered anything if %n wasn't
specified... oh well, my bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
16 matches
Mail list logo
