> If we segfault for printf("%d\n", 2+2), the bug would not be in this
> category. If we printed 5, it would be.
So what if the printf statement is executed only once every leap year?
What if it segfaults only if you have one out of several thousand
address space randomization patterns?
Your dis
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 02:04:16PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> >On 5/25/07, Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>What about a keyword for bugs that
> >>
> >>- generate wrong code
> >>- affect a standard-conforming program
> >>- are silent (no error message)
> >>
>
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 22:12 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Friday 25 May 2007, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > What about a keyword for bugs that
> >
> > - generate wrong code
> > - affect a standard-conforming program
> > - are silent (no error message)
>
> We already have one: "wrong-code"
>
> 1 and 3
Paul Brook wrote:
2 is a IMHO fairly academic distinction. We either care about code working
(and support no-conforming code as an extension), or we decide that we're ok
with that particular code being broken.
That's a better way to express the concern I had. I would not get
excited about som
On Friday 25 May 2007, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> What about a keyword for bugs that
>
> - generate wrong code
> - affect a standard-conforming program
> - are silent (no error message)
We already have one: "wrong-code"
1 and 3 mutually exclusive. ie. if we generate an error, then by definition we
d
Richard Guenther wrote:
On 5/25/07, Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about a keyword for bugs that
- generate wrong code
- affect a standard-conforming program
- are silent (no error message)
?
IMHO, these bugs are especially nasty and should get high visibility
(and maybe even s
On 5/25/07, Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about a keyword for bugs that
- generate wrong code
- affect a standard-conforming program
- are silent (no error message)
?
IMHO, these bugs are especially nasty and should get high visibility
(and maybe even special privileges for fix
Thomas Koenig wrote:
What about a keyword for bugs that
- generate wrong code
- affect a standard-conforming program
- are silent (no error message)
IMHO, these bugs are especially nasty and should get high visibility
(and maybe even special privileges for fixing on a release branch).
Well I
What about a keyword for bugs that
- generate wrong code
- affect a standard-conforming program
- are silent (no error message)
?
IMHO, these bugs are especially nasty and should get high visibility
(and maybe even special privileges for fixing on a release branch).
Thomas
