On 2005-05-24, at 09:09, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[dropping most of the message - if I haven't responded, assume I don't
agree but I also don't care enough to continue the argument. Also,
rearranging paragraphs a bit so as not to have to repeat myself]
with the explicit call to malloc + explicit specification of sizeof,
I've found a number of wrong codes -- while replacing the existing
xmalloc/xcallo with XNEWVEC and friends (see previous patches and
messages) in libiberty, not counting the happy confusion about
xcalloc() in the current GCC codes. Those are bugs we do not have
with the XNEWVEC and friends. Not only, we do get readable code, we
also get right codes.
...
I don't think so. These patches make it possible to compile the
source code with a C++ compiler. We gain better checking by doing
that.
Have you found any places where the bugs you found could have resulted
in user-visible incorrect behavior (of any kind)?
If you have, I will drop all of my objections.
You could look at the linkage issues for darwin I have found several
months
ago. They where *real*.
