| 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 |
Archives