> Ugh, it shouldn't, because that would be a phenomenally poor analogy I was referring to using an inappropriate tool (obscurity / confuse compilers) to address the original problem (security / silence the warnings). Also in both cases you don't really achieve the end goal (security / silence the warnings) while having some illusion that you do :)
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Marc Lehmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:20:39PM -0700, Andrey Pokrovskiy > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > the additional void * cast is there to confuse some compilers >> > into not emitting a warning, but is generally not very effective. >> >> Reminds me of "security through obscurity". > > Ugh, it shouldn't, because that would be a phenomenally poor analogy > - there is no loss nor gain from trying to avoid a compiler warning > regarding correctness (the semantics of the code don't change due to the > extra cast, the same is true for using extra ()'s to silence warnings), > while using obscurity for security in fact disables your security. > > The analogy would hold if the extra cast would silence the compiler while > also introducing or keeping an aliasing violation - you'd gain silence > that makes you feel safe, but in fact it's completely unsafe. > > -- > The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG > -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net > ----==-- _ generation > ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann > --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected] > -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ _______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
