3 ms·

Upstream glibc bug here: http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518 Assigned to the ini

by ximeng 16y ago

Upstream glibc bug here: http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518 Assigned to the inimitable Ulrich Drepper, who comments: "The existence of code written by people who should never have been allowed to touch a keyboard cannot be allowed to prevent a correct implementation."

CamperBob 16y ago
"The existence of code written by people who should never have been allowed to touch a keyboard cannot be allowed to prevent a correct implementation." Sounds like Drepper needs to read the standard C library spec (or else there's a human-language barrier at work here). It is not incorrect to map memcpy() to memmove(). ("Be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept." -- Postel) Can anyone imagine this debate happening inside Microsoft? This is why they win.
- xilun0 16y ago
  sounds like you misunderstood what Ulrich wrote
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    Could be. What's your interpretation? Bear in mind that I'm an experienced developer, and consequently am reluctant to call someone a "moron" who should "not be allowed to touch a keyboard" on the basis of the occasional bug in their code. Yes, confusing memcpy() and memmove() is a novice mistake, but I've done dumber things, and it'd be nice if my users didn't have to pay the price. If the OS or CRTL can save them from my error by rendering the error harmless without any real downside, then it should do so.
mitchellh 16y ago
I wanted to note that Ulrich Drepper has proposed a way around the issue, and clearly said at the end "I'm happy to entertain a patch to this effect." When I first read the parent comment it sounded as though Ulrich immediately shot it down, which he did not. (Note I'm not blaming the OP of the parent comment for this, I am just trying to help future readers from making the same mistake I did) While he is not immediately agreeing with what Linus proposed, at least it is progress.

by ximeng 16y ago

CamperBob 16y ago

"The existence of code written by people who should never have been allowed to touch a keyboard cannot be allowed to prevent a correct implementation." Sounds like Drepper needs to read the standard C library spec (or else there's a human-language barrier at work here). It is not incorrect to map memcpy() to memmove(). ("Be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept." -- Postel) Can anyone imagine this debate happening inside Microsoft? This is why they win.

xilun0 16y ago
sounds like you misunderstood what Ulrich wrote
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Could be. What's your interpretation? Bear in mind that I'm an experienced developer, and consequently am reluctant to call someone a "moron" who should "not be allowed to touch a keyboard" on the basis of the occasional bug in their code. Yes, confusing memcpy() and memmove() is a novice mistake, but I've done dumber things, and it'd be nice if my users didn't have to pay the price. If the OS or CRTL can save them from my error by rendering the error harmless without any real downside, then it should do so.

mitchellh 16y ago

I wanted to note that Ulrich Drepper has proposed a way around the issue, and clearly said at the end "I'm happy to entertain a patch to this effect." When I first read the parent comment it sounded as though Ulrich immediately shot it down, which he did not. (Note I'm not blaming the OP of the parent comment for this, I am just trying to help future readers from making the same mistake I did) While he is not immediately agreeing with what Linus proposed, at least it is progress.