@lolhaq @Snowden @subgraph @QubesOS @marcan42 that's a great example of how our defenses protect against even our own bugs. thanks!

Oct 1, 2016 · 6:03 PM UTC
2
sure, it's proven itself time and again, not many defenses can say the same.
1
no, the bug was human error, whereas the defense was automated.
1
there're many bugs our defenses caught over the years, just browse lkml or our forums.
1
no, the first problem (not bug per se) was due to gcc internals, the defense itself was fine.
defenses don't create bugs, humans do ;).
1
it's not a bug but a problem with gcc (recognized by gcc devs too).
blame is what you're trying to do, identifying the root cause isn't ;).
1
and when did i not deal with 'it'? (your not reading the docs isn't my fault but yours)
1
gcc's plugin architecture makes it impossible, but i told you that before, didn't i?
by default everything is off and patches are welcome for better wording.
Load more