On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:00:57AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > So basically a variation of the old problem of calling memcpy when one > > meant to use memmove. I'm actually surprised that type of call to sprintf > > ever worked reliably with optimization, even without _FORTIFY_SOURCE. > > But, like memcpy vs. memmove, it's the sort of thing that's horribly > > difficult to debug. > This is something that can be tested for in s*printf() itself: deoptimizing > it by a single comparison is probably worth catching a relatively popular > error. Do we have data about its popularity?
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
