On Sunday 06 July 2008 22:17:12 Andrew Johnson via RT wrote: > On Sun Jul 06 11:03:37 2008, japhb wrote:
> > Better yet, we should replace the inherently insecure quicksort > > algorithm (insecure in the "vulnerable to algorithmic attack" sense) > > with a more secure mergesort like perl5 uses. IIRC, perl5's mergesort > > is also carefully crafted to be as sensible as possible in the face of > > insane compare functions .... > No objections here, but until that's available the attached patch stops > the segfault from occurring with the existing quicksort function. Agreed. Thanks, applied with a test from the original message as r29115. The test should be robust enough in the face of algorithmic changes to continue to pass as long as the code fails to segfault. -- c
