4 ms·

I'm surprised that no comment has extrapolated that since this was a vsprintf implementation copy, the final binary would be non compliant only if the machine c

I'm surprised that no comment has extrapolated that since this was a vsprintf implementation copy, the final binary would be non compliant only if the machine code generated for it was distributed, but if it was only used for debugging internal builds (as I would assume), then the original developers didn't run afoul of the license. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
monocasa 7y ago
The author notes that they were able to find constants that the code uses in the binary, so odds are it was at least partially distributed.
- patmcc 7y ago
  The constants mentioned are the following: "01234567890abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" and "01234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" It's very possible that separate implementations of this function would use those same constants. It's not as if they're some completely arbitrary strings.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    When these constants don't appear elsewhere in the source? And what, they'd have another implementation of this function, but have a different one with their code because... reasons?
    - patmcc 7y ago
      I mean, if you got "the source code" for a project at my work, you might get the raw source for Project A and then a bunch of already compiled libraries we put together for use, some of which could do similar things to existing code. But yah it's probably from Linux, I just don't think the constants alone are a smoking gun.
  - johndough 7y ago
    These constants should appear in most arbitrary-base-integer-to-string functions. I wouldn't say that this proves anything.
haecceity 7y ago
Isn't it common to leave debug code in production software?
- gambiting 7y ago
  I work on AAA games and we definitely don't leave any debug code in production copies of the games. It's all #ifdef'd out in Retail builds.
  - dijit 7y ago
    I’m always surprised when I see you here but I’m not sure why. Anyway. I can corroborate this. Debug code is /really/ harming performance in AAA games. Also, you want to remove your “cheats” that QC use to skip chunks of the game.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      Older games are known for still containing various cheats to skip chunks of the game or make them easier. I'd guess a PS1 game might still have debug left in along with cheats simply either due to time pressure or someone forgot.
      - mewse 7y ago
        In my experience, we would leave the cheats in retail builds of those old games mostly because leaving them in was less risky than removing them. They had been there during all of development and testing, and we were reasonably certain of the build’s stability, but.. pull them out and your compiled code layout changes, data layout potentially changes, and who knows whether it’ll expose a new misbehaviour we’ve never seen before or know to regression test. It’s just much much much safer to leave the debugging assistants (level skip, etc) in place. Especially back in the days when we couldn’t issue patches after release! (Also, depending on era, you could feed a cheat code or two to magazines/websites/etc to get another article written about your game.. doubt that trick works any more, though!)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

monocasa 7y ago

The author notes that they were able to find constants that the code uses in the binary, so odds are it was at least partially distributed.

patmcc 7y ago
The constants mentioned are the following: "01234567890abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" and "01234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" It's very possible that separate implementations of this function would use those same constants. It's not as if they're some completely arbitrary strings.
- monocasa 7y ago
  When these constants don't appear elsewhere in the source? And what, they'd have another implementation of this function, but have a different one with their code because... reasons?
  - patmcc 7y ago
    I mean, if you got "the source code" for a project at my work, you might get the raw source for Project A and then a bunch of already compiled libraries we put together for use, some of which could do similar things to existing code. But yah it's probably from Linux, I just don't think the constants alone are a smoking gun.
- johndough 7y ago
  These constants should appear in most arbitrary-base-integer-to-string functions. I wouldn't say that this proves anything.

haecceity 7y ago

Isn't it common to leave debug code in production software?

gambiting 7y ago
I work on AAA games and we definitely don't leave any debug code in production copies of the games. It's all #ifdef'd out in Retail builds.
- dijit 7y ago
  I’m always surprised when I see you here but I’m not sure why. Anyway. I can corroborate this. Debug code is /really/ harming performance in AAA games. Also, you want to remove your “cheats” that QC use to skip chunks of the game.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Older games are known for still containing various cheats to skip chunks of the game or make them easier. I'd guess a PS1 game might still have debug left in along with cheats simply either due to time pressure or someone forgot.
    - mewse 7y ago
      In my experience, we would leave the cheats in retail builds of those old games mostly because leaving them in was less risky than removing them. They had been there during all of development and testing, and we were reasonably certain of the build’s stability, but.. pull them out and your compiled code layout changes, data layout potentially changes, and who knows whether it’ll expose a new misbehaviour we’ve never seen before or know to regression test. It’s just much much much safer to leave the debugging assistants (level skip, etc) in place. Especially back in the days when we couldn’t issue patches after release! (Also, depending on era, you could feed a cheat code or two to magazines/websites/etc to get another article written about your game.. doubt that trick works any more, though!)