On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:50:58AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > Although, if we wanted to get really crazy, we could say this is a bug in > the spec of ld. But if we go there, we have to acknowledge that the spec of > ld matches the general C/*nix run-time spec, so the bug is in ... (chasing > our semantic tail a bit) ... certain implementation-dependent, but de-facto > spec, low-level elements of the C run-time which make it hard to return > non-scalar error messages from low-level tools. > > (I know that sounds like a string of buzz-words, but making it any simpler > just ends up as a pejorative reference to the 8086's lack of extra address > registers. :-\ )
Indeed. I think my brain just broke. Let's just say the bug report should be against Tom Roche's workplace's network security bods :) Cheers, Tom -- I've got a COUSIN who works in the GARMENT DISTRICT ...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
