You can tell the nice people developing the gcc that they made a mistake enforcing type checking then. However, you've provided no evidence that your position is based on any kind of knowledge.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Argent Stonecutter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009-11-04, at 07:34, Lillian Yiyuan wrote: >> As I understand what is going on, it is definitely a vulnerability to >> have a pointer to a fixed string being handed out as if it is a >> variable. You can get rid of it by the flag for no write strings, >> which is one of the options. But I don't know enough about the problem >> to say which of the choices it should be, and you don't seem to >> either. > > Which is why it should be left as a *warning* until someone actually > traces down what the correct fix is, rather than hiding it or creating > a memory leak. > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
