[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Po Lu
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2023 08:50:22 +0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Arsen Arsenović <arsen@aarsen.me>
>> Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, mattias.engdegard@gmail.com, vibhavp@gmail.com,
>>  rpluim@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 17:22:48 +0200
>> I understand why you're arguing this, and I have to thank you for it -
>> such efforts keep Emacs as stable as it is - but this feels like an
>> example that is too trivial to apply such judgment to, hence my
>> position.  I am certain that you have an understanding of the issue at
>> hand, I'm only trying to provide a solution that's safe enough for 29.
> Among other reasons, we'd need a real-life case where this code fails
> to test any solutions.

-fsanitize=undefined is intended to detect these ``real-life cases''
before they occur.

We are talking about code that is less than three years old, in the
context of a procedure that has not been changed much since the days of
the Unicode branch!  How can you be so certain of its safety?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]