From xemacs-m  Fri Feb  7 13:08:44 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08821
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:08:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id UAA01557; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:08:43 +0100 (MET)
Sender: hniksic@public.srce.hr
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 20.0 --with-mule segfaults when viewing Japanese
References: <yviasp3digdf.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com> 	<199702041227.NAA17114@sen2.ida.liu.se> 	<kig6808gqbw.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<199702070342.TAA14213@xemacs.eng.sun.com> 	<199702071422.PAA29298@sen2.ida.liu.se> 	<kighgjo4nav.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199702071636.RAA29564@sen2.ida.liu.se> <m2vi841mdl.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-URL: ftp://gnjilux.cc.fer.hr/pub/unix/util/wget/
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: &}4JQk=L;e.~x+|eo]#DGk@x3~ed!.~lZ}YQcYb7f[WL9L'Z*+OyA\nAEL1M(".[qvI#a2E
 6WYI5>>e7'@_)3Ol9p|Nn2wNa/;~06jL*B%tTcn/XvhAu7qeES0\|MF%$;sI#yn1+y"
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 07 Feb 1997 20:08:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 07 Feb 1997 10:50:30 -0800
Message-ID: <kig20aswi11.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 25
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.11/XEmacs 19.14

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> I don't have a problem with a little extra error/bounds checking for
> safety.  I do have a problem with cloning special case code as it
> tends to become unmaintainable.  I don't see a problem with David's
> patch even if the corrected macro were more widely called.

There would be no problem in the sense of XEmacs not working
correctly.  There would be problem in the sense of solving the wrong
things.  Such solutions are the moral equivalents of adding
bound-checking to C because your code is buggy.  Or, when the buggy
Linux netscape comes out, people "solve" it by LD_PRELOAD-ing a less
strict (but less efficient) malloc library.

It's not the malloc library that needs patching; it's Netscape.  If
it's *illegal* to access a part of memory, it's illegal; adding
bound-checking is not the way to solve it in C.

As I said, none of this applies to David's patch, as we know where the
macro is used.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!

