Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows

From: Rex Dieter (rdieter@unl.edu)
Date: 06/21/02 

From: Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:16:14 -0500

Tim Haynes wrote:

> Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu> writes:
>
>> svek wrote:
>>
>> > Hal Burgiss <hal@burgiss.net> wrote:
>> >> Bullshit. You obviously never used it.
>> >
>> > it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler
>> > on GNUs gcc homepage, which pretty much states that it was a beta.
>> > http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html
>>
>> Sure it was a beta, but redhat chose to use it because it was STILL
>> better than anything available at the time (especially to support archs
>> other than x86).
>
> ...and the facts it broke C++ library compatibility through use of a dodgy
> ABI,

hogwash. The same could be said of gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1.

> and wasn't able to compile a kernel properly doesn't really enter
> into it?
> In their defence, at least they provided kgcc as a fall-back...

In redhat 7.0 this was true, but that is ancient history by now, and no
longer true. 

-- 
Rex A. Dieter                   rdieter@unl.edu 
Computer System Administrator   http://www.math.unl.edu/~rdieter/
Mathematics and Statistics               
University of Nebraska Lincoln

Relevant Pages

  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >>> it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler ... which pretty much states that it was a beta. ... >> Sure it was a beta, but redhat chose to use it because it was STILL ... longer true. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >>> Bullshit. ... >> it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler ... >> on GNUs gcc homepage, which pretty much states that it was a beta. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >>> Bullshit. ... >> it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler ... >> on GNUs gcc homepage, which pretty much states that it was a beta. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >> Bullshit. ... > it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler on ... > GNUs gcc homepage, which pretty much states that it was a beta. ... Sure it was a beta, but redhat chose to use it because it was STILL better ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >> Bullshit. ... > it's quite interesting that they haven't even got the 2.96 gcc compiler on ... > GNUs gcc homepage, which pretty much states that it was a beta. ... Sure it was a beta, but redhat chose to use it because it was STILL better ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)