And I trust you... why?
-
Serious because acuumulating wrong SHA's over months or even a year is a ventilator-hitting-rear-exhaust-product waiting to happen. In addition, the "wrong" SHA's may be collision-prone or not even stable.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Over 16 months of "generating invalid SHA's". Just imagining the dungstorm of a pool of wrong-SHA'd data accumulated over a year.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Sure... if you have an ancient CPU, which you don't. Or if your buffer crosses 0x80000000, which it won't.
harold aptroot wrote:
if you have an ancient CPU,
If I know beforehand, I can block customers running on this. Otherwise, I don't have much control over that. My clients are "very conservative", to say the least.
harold aptroot wrote:
Or if your buffer crosses 0x80000000, which it won't.
If I know beforehand that I can't use /LARGEADDRESSAWARE, I can do that. Now, yes, the large address space bug is feckin' hard to detect (requires an experienced coder who knows the problem). However, the x86-non-SSE-codepath is pretty darn easy to test even on a system with SSE.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Only for x86... Maybe they weren't much of a concern.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
