[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libgd security update / i686 issues
From: |
Andreas Enge |
Subject: |
Re: libgd security update / i686 issues |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:34:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) |
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:23:37AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Should these CFLAGS values be applied unconditionally, as in the
> attached patch, or should they be applied only while building on or for
> specific architectures? Or something else?
They only work on x86 processors, almost by definition: SSE stands for
a certain instruction set. So one would need to check whether the problem
occurs for other architectures. I would assume that it happens on all 32
bit architectures, in particular armhf. Their code is too fragile: One
should not rely on fine details of the processor architecture or instruction
set to hope for an expected rounding behaviour.
Andreas
- libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues,
Andreas Enge <=
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Mark H Weaver, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Mark H Weaver, 2016/07/29
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/29
- Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Mark H Weaver, 2016/07/29
Re: libgd security update / i686 issues, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/28