Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw
Date: 23 Feb 2014 03:49:16 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <bmt9dsFqnikU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me> <220220141415089899%nospam@nospam.invalid> <2NWdnQXy6oxRY5XOnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <53092980$0$9676$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> <L-SdnarB-Z1fppTOnZ2dnUVZ_uIAAAAA@giganews.com> <5309699e$0$34974$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>
X-Trace: individual.net wb3jVR3c3t9+AElRS68B9AXAT7n9WgA0s8ZJtk+arHfZQhX8lL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P+A8tV+nLG4e/6wCgZ9MTEq2LNg=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:56879

On 2014-02-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-02-22 19:07, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Compiler optimization doesn't replace source code.
>
> Modern commercial optimizing compilers most certaintly do. They also
> re-arrange order for some target platforms.
>
> A whole block of IFs whose sole outcome is to branch to the same place
> would be detected by a good compiler and optimized away.

Yep, although one could argue that's not the source code being modified,
but the generated object code.

> On VMS for instance, when you want to debug code, you must compile with
> optimizations off so your source code can be matched with operations and
> variables. (variables are often optimized away).

Yep, that applies to many compilers.

>> A more 'rigorous' style (which amongst other things, avoids goto) would 
>> have either avoided that bug or resulted in a failed compilation.
>
> There is nothing wrong with the code. Consider a situation where you
> have that double goto as a temporary situtaion to avoid the other checks
> to help debugging it, or because the code for those other checks isn't
> written yet.
>
> I agree that the use of braces does make things more obvious for those
> cases where only one statement is accepted following a conditional one
> (such as if, while and a few others)

Clean, well-written, readable code is good code.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR