> they all quickly fixed the issue I notice you linked the fixes for clang and gcc. Where's the link for MSVC? > Should there have been a CVE? Probably. Glad

> they all quickly fixed the issue I notice you linked the fixes for clang and gcc. Where's the link for MSVC? > Should there have been a CVE? Probably. Glad you agree. But the absence of it proves the point I'm trying to make - they didn't take it seriously enough. > there's no central C++ CVE committee to have done that, either, which to Herb's point It actually sounds like Herb wants to reduce the the number of C++ CVEs that are filed, not increase them. He very specifically says that a bug shouldn't be enough, there should be a vulnerability. It sounds like he wants to achieve his goal of fewer CVEs by juking the stats, but who knows.