This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Andreas Bogk <andreas at andreas dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:48:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
References: <45B4C11A.305@andreas.org> <m3ejpmc1op.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <45B54D40.1090107@andreas.org> <20070123000833.GY31955@synopsys.com> <45B585D1.1080202@andreas.org> <m3ejpm8hk0.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <45B5C12C.4030003@andreas.org> <4aca3dc20701230845l48940calc762194cd5f029c8@mail.gmail.com>


The one security related argument that makes sense to me
here is the business of writing tests for overflow that
make the wrap assumption. I can see that having a security
implication.

References:
- Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Andreas Bogk
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Andreas Bogk
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Andreas Bogk
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Andreas Bogk
- Re: Signed int overflow behaviour in the security context
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]