[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!? |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:33:41 +0200 |
Jakub Jelinek <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> We already special case e.g. 0x0000.80000000.00000000 (pseudo denormal
> with implicit bit set), so I guess we can also special case this other
> misdesigned FP type.
Great!
...
> That said, programs that pass arbitrary bit patterns read from an insecure
> source to *printf and other functions are definitely
> broken as floating point numbers, they can hit signalling NaNs etc.
They aren't necessarily broken.
They should be able to deal with an sNaN via a SIGFPE handler.
With your change, they won't have to handle SIGSEGV.
Thank you!
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, (continued)
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Paul Mackerras, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Bruno Haible, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/07
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Bruno Haible, 2007/06/06
[PATCH] Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jakub Jelinek, 2007/06/06
- Re: [PATCH] Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?,
Jim Meyering <=
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jeremy Linton, 2007/06/07
arch-independent glibc printf segfault for "special" long double values, Jim Meyering, 2007/06/08