1 |
Back on to a different subject...has anyone looked at the libm |
2 |
section? I am curious as to how much of a performance increase that |
3 |
would add if we can get it working. |
4 |
|
5 |
On 7/23/05, Ian McCulloch <ianmcc@××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Matt Randolph wrote: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > Sean Johnson wrote: |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > > LOL! |
13 |
> > > That must be for the folk that don't mind patching glibc, but will get |
14 |
> > > upset if memcpy does strange things. :) |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > You try to do a good turn and they laugh at you. That'll teach me. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Heh ;-) I would like to see a version of memcpy.c that DOES do something |
21 |
> malicious, without being completely obvious. This isn't Windows, a |
22 |
> seg-fault isn't going to take down the kernel, or corrupt the filesystem;) |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Cheers |
25 |
> Ian |
26 |
> -- |
27 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
28 |
> |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |