Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
From: Rex Dieter (rdieter@unl.edu)Date: 06/21/02
- Next message: drumstik: "Re: Firewall Evasion"
- Previous message: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Next in thread: Hal Burgiss: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:19:26 -0500
svek wrote:
> Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu> wrote in news:aevinb$fht$2@unlnews.unl.edu:
>> 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).
>
> I don't judge redhat, they probably had their reasons but in my opinion
> one should use stable software in a stable release.
IMO, gcc-2.96 (at least in its current incarnation in rh7.3) is quite
stable...though people's critera for this vary. I consider it's better
support for c++ standards a big plus...
-- Rex A. Dieter rdieter@unl.edu Computer System Administrator http://www.math.unl.edu/~rdieter/ Mathematics and Statistics University of Nebraska Lincoln
- Next message: drumstik: "Re: Firewall Evasion"
- Previous message: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Next in thread: Hal Burgiss: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
