This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3]
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, matz at gcc dot gnu dot org, sgayou at redhat dot com, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, tom at tromey dot com, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:45:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3]
- References: <87muprdko7.fsf@redhat.com> <20181130084211.GX12380@tucnak> <173817ca-0aa0-e1a2-6725-37e079ead545@redhat.com> <m3woousm8n.fsf@pepe.airs.com> <20181130140330.GA12380@tucnak> <fa1abe9c-7545-6a48-cbf0-97b993345523@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1gTSXgSiJSFKEWaE0UTGbi45-mWHKJnUb4Wvjp86bbFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Richard,
>> * The description of the DMGL_RECURSE_LIMIT option in demangle.h has
>> been enhanced to add a note that if the option is not used, then
>> bug reports about stack overflows in the demangler will be rejected.
>
> Shouldn't we make it fool-proof by instead introducing a DMGL_NO_RECURSION_LIMIT
> flag and when not set default to limiting recursion?
Well I wanted the patch to be backwards compatible. Just on the
general principle of not surprising users/programmers by changing
things without telling them first.
I could change this of course, but I would rather have Ian's blessing
first.
Cheers
Nick