Can we start working on Herbception?

[unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc]

I freaking want it

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Iain Sandoe
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 10:42
To: unlvsur unlvsur
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: -stdlib=libc++?

unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc  wrote:

> I think this would be great to support LLVM’s libc++ by be compatible
> with -stdlib=libc++ on clang.

I have a patch for this, for next stage 1.

(we are in stage 4 now, so not the right time for new features).

thanks
Iain

GCC 10.0 Status Report (2020-04-01)

[Richard Biener]

Status
==

GCC trunk is in regression and documentation fixing mode, stage 4.
There's still quite some work to do before we reach the zero-P1
milestone and thus qualify for a first release candidate of GCC 10.
Please help in making this happen soon, historical data would
predict a RC to be available in about two to three weeks from now.


Quality Data


Priority  #   Change from last report
---   ---
P1   21   +   1
P2  222   +  26
P3   15   - 148
P4  178   +  27
P5   23
---   ---
Total P1-P3 258   - 121
Total   459   -  94


Previous Report
===

https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2020-01/msg00199.html

[no subject]

[diet.surf--- via Gcc]

Hello,   perhaps you can help me.   I search e decompiler or disassambler for 
with gcc create *.hex file for TC1796 uC. Thanks for your efforts.   Yours 
sincerely   Diet Müller 

-
FreeMail powered by mail.de - MEHR SICHERHEIT, SERIOSITÄT UND KOMFORT

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 4/1/20 8:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 3/26/20 4:27 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 3/26/20 4:16 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>> marc.info is an independent site that is not associated with
>>> sourceware.org.  We don't control it.  If you have questions about their
>>> site then ask them.
>>>
>>> The mailing list software is all easily discernible by investigating
>>> email headers and via google but someone else answered your questions
>>> later in this thread.
>>>
>>
>> But don't you think that we change something in 6.3 to make them break.
>> like no longer sending updates, or something?
>>
>> Don't you have any idea what changed on our side?
>>
>> I mean what should I tell them they should do to fix that?
>>
>>
> 
> Ah, marc.info is fixed, it turned out that the messages were just Quarantined
> because due to the change in the ip adresses, mailing software etc.
> marc.info was under the impression that all these messages were just spam.
> 
> That is what they told me:
> 
> "For lists that often get spammed, we set up some silent header-checks
> so that mails that don't look like they came from the real listserver
> get quarrantined, and don't appear when viewing that list.
> 
> Well, that can break when mailing list software changes - like when they
> switched away from ezmlm to Mailman.
> 
> I've updated our filter check and un-quarrantined about 4500 mails to
> various gcc- lists that landed there this month."
> 
> So indeed all our mailing list message are again on marc.info,
> I think when it can handle lkml it can handle gcc-patches as well.
> 
> Many Thanks go to Hank Leininger who does a gread job with marc.info.
> 
> 
> Bernd.
> 

PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
that must be fixed by our overseers.

That is the scubbed attachments.

As an example please look at this one:
https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2


you see this:

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Fix-range-end-handling-of-inlined-subroutines.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 10992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 


So there are two serious problems here:

1. there is a single point of failure, if sourceware.org goes down the 
attachment is lost.

2. since the url is http: a man in the middle can impersonate sourceware.org 
and give you a
virus instead of my patch file.
It does not help that sourceware.org redirects the download to 
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20200313/5158bb87/attachment.bin
an attacker will not be so polite to do that.


@overseeers: PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY THAT SCRUBBING

can you act now, or do you need a CVE number first ?

Thanks
Bernd.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
> that must be fixed by our overseers.
> 
> That is the scubbed attachments.
> 
> As an example please look at this one:
> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2

The copy of that message I received from gdb-patches by email appears to 
have the attachment intact.  I don't know where marc.info got the message 
from, but it doesn't seem to be by email from the list.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Jonathan Wakely via Gcc]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 21:30, Bernd Edlinger  wrote:
> @overseeers: PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY THAT SCRUBBING

You're emailing the gcc list about the gdb-patches mailing list, and
haven't CC'd the overseers list or the gdb list.

> can you act now, or do you need a CVE number first ?

That doesn't seem like it would be helpful.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Jonathan Wakely via Gcc]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:54, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
> > PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
> > that must be fixed by our overseers.
> >
> > That is the scubbed attachments.
> >
> > As an example please look at this one:
> > https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
>
> The copy of that message I received from gdb-patches by email appears to
> have the attachment intact.  I don't know where marc.info got the message
> from, but it doesn't seem to be by email from the list.

The sourceware.org archive also has an HTTP (not HTTPS) link for that
attachment:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-March/166601.html

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 4/2/20 12:54 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 
>> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
>> that must be fixed by our overseers.
>>
>> That is the scubbed attachments.
>>
>> As an example please look at this one:
>> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
> 
> The copy of that message I received from gdb-patches by email appears to 
> have the attachment intact.  I don't know where marc.info got the message 
> from, but it doesn't seem to be by email from the list.
> 

I don't know for sure, but I suppose one of the subscribers
will be Hank Leininger from marc.info.

Can you check the raw message format from you inbox, so you mail software
is not playing tricks with you?


Thanks
Bernd.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 4/2/20 1:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:54, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>>> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
>>> that must be fixed by our overseers.
>>>
>>> That is the scubbed attachments.
>>>
>>> As an example please look at this one:
>>> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
>>
>> The copy of that message I received from gdb-patches by email appears to
>> have the attachment intact.  I don't know where marc.info got the message
>> from, but it doesn't seem to be by email from the list.
> 
> The sourceware.org archive also has an HTTP (not HTTPS) link for that
> attachment:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-March/166601.html
> 

Yes, exactly.

But when I serach "bernd.edlinger" in marc.info I see *every* message
I sent to the gcc-patches since 2013 and each of them has an attachment,
and it is available per https from marc.info, not sourceware.org,
that is insane to assume that marc.info would store attachments on
sourceware.org, the only logical explanation is that sourceware.org
changed the e-mail and removed the attachment and forwarded a different
version of the e-mail to marc.info.

Regarding the overseers, they repeatedly spoke up on this list,
but all the time they use an e-mail that bounces.
I'd call that impolite.  If you know how to reach them, please
make them aware of this issue, because it is a security relevant
issue.  Seriously.


Bernd.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Unidef Defshrizzle]

We can setup a command line interface, maybe using CURSES, I mean GUIs are
fun, but Jesus Christ they’re full of surprises

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:35 PM Bernd Edlinger 
wrote:

> On 4/2/20 1:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:54, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
> >>> that must be fixed by our overseers.
> >>>
> >>> That is the scubbed attachments.
> >>>
> >>> As an example please look at this one:
> >>> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
> >>
> >> The copy of that message I received from gdb-patches by email appears to
> >> have the attachment intact.  I don't know where marc.info got the
> message
> >> from, but it doesn't seem to be by email from the list.
> >
> > The sourceware.org archive also has an HTTP (not HTTPS) link for that
> > attachment:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-March/166601.html
> >
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> But when I serach "bernd.edlinger" in marc.info I see *every* message
> I sent to the gcc-patches since 2013 and each of them has an attachment,
> and it is available per https from marc.info, not sourceware.org,
> that is insane to assume that marc.info would store attachments on
> sourceware.org, the only logical explanation is that sourceware.org
> changed the e-mail and removed the attachment and forwarded a different
> version of the e-mail to marc.info.
>
> Regarding the overseers, they repeatedly spoke up on this list,
> but all the time they use an e-mail that bounces.
> I'd call that impolite.  If you know how to reach them, please
> make them aware of this issue, because it is a security relevant
> issue.  Seriously.
>
>
> Bernd.
>

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:57:05PM -0700, Unidef Defshrizzle wrote:
>We can setup a command line interface, maybe using CURSES, I mean GUIs are
>fun, but Jesus Christ they’re full of surprises

Command line interface to what?

You can read email using whatever interface your want.  Archives are
obviously going to be web-formatted.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:29:58PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
>that must be fixed by our overseers.
>
>As an example please look at this one:
>https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
>
>you see this:
>
>-- next part --
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: 0001-Fix-range-end-handling-of-inlined-subroutines.patch
>Type: text/x-patch
>Size: 10992 bytes
>Desc: not available
>URL: 
>
>
>So there are two serious problems here:
>
>1.  there is a single point of failure, if sourceware.org goes down the
>attachment is lost.

sourceware.org has been in operation for 20+ years.  There's lots of
stuff relying on it so it isn't going anywhere.  And, the patch is going
to be in lots of inboxes.  And, if sourceware.org goes down then the
main gdb and gcc source code repositories will also be unavailable.
But, of course, there will be hundreds of copies of that too.

But, then, none of that matters since the "scrubbing" means that the
patch is not offered inline in the *sourceware archives*.  You still see
the patch in your inbox.  So, as Joseph Myers noted, it's a mystery why
marc.info is reporting that.

If you want another source for your patch you can find it here:

http://sourceware-org.1504.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-0-2-Line-table-is-stmt-support-td613080i20.html#a619775

It also has a download link but it's from nabble.com.  So, you can rest
easy knowing that there is more than one place for people to find your
patch if sourceware.org goes down.

>@overseeers: PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY THAT SCRUBBING
>
>can you act now, or do you need a CVE number first ?

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 05:35:09AM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>Regarding the overseers, they repeatedly spoke up on this list,
>but all the time they use an e-mail that bounces.
>I'd call that impolite.  If you know how to reach them, please
>make them aware of this issue, because it is a security relevant
>issue.  Seriously.

overseers is a mailing list.  You can send email to it @ either the
gcc.gnu.org or sourceware.org domains.  It will be read by the small
number of *volunteers* who keep the site running at no cost to you.

But, all of this is, as I and others have noted, a non-issue for
sourceware.org / gcc.gnu.org.  If you do send email there you will be
told that.  By me.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 4/2/20 7:13 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:57:05PM -0700, Unidef Defshrizzle wrote:
>> We can setup a command line interface, maybe using CURSES, I mean GUIs are
>> fun, but Jesus Christ they’re full of surprises
> 
> Command line interface to what?
> 
> You can read email using whatever interface your want.  Archives are
> obviously going to be web-formatted.
> 

What happens to the e-mails when they are not archive, but forwarded
to the subscribers, like mark.info who just subscribes the mails,
and archived them they have a lot of hard disks for that and can
handle attachments quite well.  The point is previously the attachment
were stored on marc.info, but now they are no longer reaching mark.info
we mangle the e-mails that we do not archive.

Which software is responsible for that? ezlm or what?


Bernd.