[Cryptography] The GOTO Squirrel! [was GOTO Considered Harmful]
bear at sonic.net
Tue Mar 4 17:38:01 EST 2014
Crap. No unreachable code warning in gcc anymore.
I think that is an astonishing failure.
As a developer, I rely on that warning because unreachable code is ALWAYS a mistake.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicolas Rachinsky <crypto-2 at ml.turing-complete.org>
Date: 03/04/2014 04:23 (GMT-08:00)
To: Bear <bear at sonic.net>
Cc: dennis.hamilton at acm.org,'Cryptography' <cryptography at metzdowd.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] The GOTO Squirrel! [was GOTO Considered Harmful]
* Bear <bear at sonic.net> [2014-03-03 11:04 -0800]:
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 17:03 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > A pretty-printer (or any IDE that reflows indentation) would point it out.
> > So would a modern IDE that identifies unreachable code.
> > Any practical code-coverage testing would reveal it too.
> Okay, I have to say this despite the complaints on this
> list about how common TERRIBLE security practices may be.
> This is completely over the top. There is no way that this
> could possibly be accidental.
> In point of fact, I know of no commonly used or commercially
> sold compiler that fails to emit unreachable-code warnings
> by default. Therefore I do not believe that this could be
> anything but deliberate. I would be willing to state exactly
> that in a court of law.
Ho about gcc?
|The -Wunreachable-code has been removed, because it was unstable:
|it relied on the optimizer, and so different versions of gcc would
|warn about different code. The compiler still accepts and ignores
|the command line option so that existing Makefiles are not broken.
|In some future release the option will be removed entirely.
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography at metzdowd.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cryptography