A C tutorial

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Richard Heathfield

    #61
    Re: A C tutorial

    Dan Pop wrote:
    [color=blue]
    > In <c0b9ea$3u5$3@t itan.btinternet .com> Richard Heathfield
    > <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
    >[color=green]
    >>Dan Pop wrote:
    >>[color=darkred]
    >>> In <c02530$31g$1@t itan.btinternet .com> Richard Heathfield
    >>> <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
    >>>
    >>>>jacob navia wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> But PDF is a widely used format,
    >>>>
    >>>>Oh, I know, I know. That doesn't mean it necessarily /should/ be.
    >>>
    >>> Name one document format with a public specification that should be
    >>> used instead, allowing for comparable quality of the printed output.
    >>> And explain why that format should be used instead of PDF.[/color]
    >>
    >>Text works for me. No public spec needed; if there's anyone out there who
    >>doesn't know what text is, I probably don't want to read their stuff
    >>anyway.
    >>
    >>As for the printed output, it looks pretty good from where I'm standing.
    >>If your text printout quality is low, consider investing in a better
    >>printer.[/color]
    >
    > Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
    > mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
    > with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.[/color]

    That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.
    Here's an example:

    ~Iå¨~R_ß^U~Pp>Ì 7
    Ô~Pì$~@Í×à·ÑNæ` ~B^SÔ~Sm^Uéúï^O ²~R~C8!»ì^@}z~Z ¬^_~G§¬õë?y+d½Ì ¬ª\ê^?¥f¨w1^R¢
    ·-.~I¸:^?q~RVÐð~C 2D~U,ÞC%|¢^Ròèz ©ü«`,ä½~XSÕ;óI÷ w"°^]ðXI^R^_?eqa#]¸ñÞ'åv^L6¥|
    ¾HQº^X^^~^ÕUõ/^VÇ~GÒpA×É=^G~H ÞZ^GÜTÌl¢6µW~L^ ^`ñ|°³^TØ~H
    ½C^Y¬~C©?Ëût3^U ^EçÒ^C¹1~Vþz^Qº FÙjÿ©¶~SM~Qä~X£ wÈ^Rǵ¾mH^NÝ!XH }~Ky«t0^CFTz~N¸ ðlE
    cx.ÙhjAA¸$| üO?Ñ~Bìõ^S~]Y;Õ0ÆH$TECÄ~I^K 0
    Þ~U¡§?Ç~WÉÙ Ê~I|"@¬~GdË^V¼¥ Á»/^Q~X^An~].Nè~V&¨ü<õY¶^A^ DѬåÎ^G~G7­
    FQ~M?I~L¨ÑaÇÚ^H iedJè^]^WÝâ~_~HÎ~B¨SÓ^ ^X ]¶¹ï^S~DU^G~\«%e 1o^XFã~S¡¯V


    I can't manage anything quite so bad using text, I'm afraid.


    --
    Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
    "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

    Comment

    • Martin Dickopp

      #62
      Re: A C tutorial

      Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
      [color=blue]
      > In <c0bbic$d1a$05$ 1@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <expires-2004-03-31@zero-based.org> writes:
      >[color=green]
      >>Dan.Pop@cern. ch (Dan Pop) writes:
      >>[color=darkred]
      >>> In <c0am3v$2d6$06$ 1@news.t-online.com> Martin Dickopp <expires-2004-03-31@zero-based.org> writes:
      >>>
      >>>>Dan.Pop@cer n.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
      >>>>
      >>>>> In <c019r8$hk$2@he rcules.btintern et.com> Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>> BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
      >>>>>>> so your argument is spurious.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
      >>>>>>program s for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
      >>>>>>Source - lots of people have done this already,
      >>>>>
      >>>>> How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
      >>>>> doing it :-) ^^
      >>>>
      >>>>For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
      >>>>disproves that /no one/ is doing it. :) ^^^^^
      >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
      >>> Do you know what "if" means in English?[/color]
      >>
      >>Suffice it to say that what I wrote contains no indication that I don't.
      >>If you disagree, please be more elaborate.[/color]
      >
      > Reread the underlined text above and explain what it was supposed to
      > mean.[/color]

      The underlined text is not a complete sentence and was therefore not
      supposed to mean anything by itself. Only the whole sentence was
      supposed to have meaning.

      Martin

      Comment

      • Mark McIntyre

        #63
        Re: A C tutorial

        On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:33:35 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
        Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
        [color=blue]
        >Mark McIntyre wrote:
        >[color=green]
        >>
        >> Not trying to be difficult, but if you can define "text" then I'll feel
        >> happier.[/color]
        >
        >See 5.2.1 of C99 (Character sets).[/color]

        This defines "character sets", not "text". If you consider the two to be
        synonyms then you presumably consider all non-English text documents to be
        non-text. I'd call you a rude name at that point, but then we could invoke
        godwin... :-)

        Anyway, I was fully expecting 7.19.2....

        --
        Mark McIntyre
        CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
        CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>


        ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
        http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
        ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

        Comment

        • Mark McIntyre

          #64
          Re: A C tutorial

          On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:47:54 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
          Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
          [color=blue]
          >Dan Pop wrote:
          >[color=green]
          >> Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
          >> mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
          >> with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.[/color]
          >
          >That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.[/color]

          for pathological definitions of "low".
          [color=blue]
          >Here's an example:[/color]

          Just because you can't read it, doesn't mean its not high quality.

          Or do you claim that because your C code is converted from "text" to
          "binary" then by definition it is poor quality? :-)
          [color=blue]
          >I can't manage anything quite so bad using text,[/color]

          You're simply not trying hard enough.

          And by the way, that /was/ text....

          --
          Mark McIntyre
          CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
          CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>


          ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
          http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
          ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

          Comment

          • Nick Landsberg

            #65
            Re: A C tutorial



            Dan Pop wrote:
            [snip}[color=blue]
            >
            > There is a nice paper by Ken Thompson, proving that such scans cannot
            > guarantee a lack of malicious code being included in the application,
            > unless you have assembled your own compiler. He had included a backdoor
            > in Unix via the C compiler and no matter how carefully you'd study the
            > source code of the C compiler, that you could use to rebuild the compiler
            > from the sources, you'd see nothing because there was nothing left in the
            > source code. The malicious code was inside the executable of the compiler
            > that was coming with the system and it would reproduce itself in the
            > binaries of the clean compiler you'd compile with that compiler.
            >
            > Dan[/color]

            I was wondering when someone would bring up the Thompson paper
            in this thread :)

            --
            Ñ
            "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so
            ingenious" - A. Bloch

            Comment

            • Richard Heathfield

              #66
              Re: A C tutorial

              Mark McIntyre wrote:
              [color=blue]
              > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:33:35 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
              > Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
              >[color=green]
              >>Mark McIntyre wrote:
              >>[color=darkred]
              >>>
              >>> Not trying to be difficult, but if you can define "text" then I'll feel
              >>> happier.[/color]
              >>
              >>See 5.2.1 of C99 (Character sets).[/color]
              >
              > This defines "character sets", not "text".[/color]

              This seemed to me to be sufficient.
              [color=blue]
              > If you consider the two to be synonyms[/color]

              Not really, but I consider one to be built out of the other, pretty much.
              I'm not silly about it, though; I would be perfectly prepared to accept
              common extensions, such as @ and $ (both available in both ASCII and
              EBCDIC).
              [color=blue]
              > then you presumably consider all non-English text documents to be
              > non-text.[/color]

              Not so. For example, I consider C programs to be text documents, and they
              are most certainly not written in English.
              [color=blue]
              > I'd call you a rude name at that point, but then we could invoke
              > godwin... :-)[/color]

              If you were to call me a rude name at that point, I suspect it would be
              because of your misunderstandin g of my position, rather than because of my
              actual position.
              [color=blue]
              > Anyway, I was fully expecting 7.19.2....[/color]

              That is another good expression of my point, yes.

              --
              Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
              "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
              C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
              K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

              Comment

              • Richard Heathfield

                #67
                Re: A C tutorial

                Mark McIntyre wrote:
                [color=blue]
                > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:47:54 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
                > Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
                >[color=green]
                >>Dan Pop wrote:
                >>[color=darkred]
                >>> Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
                >>> mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
                >>> with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.[/color]
                >>
                >>That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.[/color]
                >
                > for pathological definitions of "low".[/color]

                <shrug> It is claimed that PDF documents are in a portable document format.
                That's what PDF /stands for/. And yet PDF is clearly /not/ a portable
                format, requiring as it does special readers which are not available on all
                platforms.
                [color=blue]
                >[color=green]
                >>Here's an example:[/color]
                >
                > Just because you can't read it, doesn't mean its not high quality.[/color]

                Well, it doesn't mean it's not of high quality from someone else's point of
                view. I will agree with you thus far. But from /my/ point of view, if I
                can't read it, it's useless. Useless *to me*, that is.
                [color=blue]
                >
                > Or do you claim that because your C code is converted from "text" to
                > "binary" then by definition it is poor quality? :-)[/color]

                No, but then I don't claim that my C compiler produces portable documents,
                either.
                [color=blue]
                >[color=green]
                >>I can't manage anything quite so bad using text,[/color]
                >
                > You're simply not trying hard enough.[/color]

                I don't say other people can't manage anything quite so bad. :-)
                [color=blue]
                >
                > And by the way, that /was/ text....[/color]

                To you, perhaps. Not to me.

                --
                Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
                "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
                C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
                K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

                Comment

                • Richard Bos

                  #68
                  Re: A C tutorial

                  Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
                  [color=blue]
                  > Dan Pop wrote:
                  >[color=green]
                  > > There is a nice paper by Ken Thompson,[/color]
                  >
                  > I know. I don't have a problem trusting gcc.[/color]

                  Besides, given the existence of other, if necessary self-designed,
                  languages, Thompson's reflections are not as significant as they appear
                  at first sight.

                  Richard

                  Comment

                  • Richard Bos

                    #69
                    Re: A C tutorial

                    Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
                    [color=blue]
                    > Mark McIntyre wrote:
                    >[color=green]
                    > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:47:54 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
                    > > Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:
                    > >[color=darkred]
                    > >>Dan Pop wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >>> Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
                    > >>> mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
                    > >>> with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.
                    > >>
                    > >>That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.[/color]
                    > >
                    > > for pathological definitions of "low".[/color]
                    >
                    > <shrug> It is claimed that PDF documents are in a portable document format.
                    > That's what PDF /stands for/. And yet PDF is clearly /not/ a portable
                    > format, requiring as it does special readers which are not available on all
                    > platforms.[/color]

                    You can write your own reader, if you wish. There are systems without
                    HTML readers, but few people would call HTML unportable, because it is
                    at least possible to write an HTML reader for just about any platform;
                    the same thing should be true for PDF.
                    Hell, if you're satisfied with a plain-text representation, a PDF reader
                    could even be on-topic in c.l.c :-)

                    Richard

                    Comment

                    • Dan Pop

                      #70
                      Re: A C tutorial

                      In <c0beg9$7k5$2@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                      [color=blue]
                      >Dan Pop wrote:
                      >[color=green]
                      >> In <c0b92a$3u5$2@t itan.btinternet .com> Richard Heathfield
                      >> <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                      >>[color=darkred]
                      >>>Dan Pop wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>>> In <c00ukl$egk$4@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield
                      >>>> <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                      >>>>
                      >>>>>Dan Pop wrote:
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>> OTOH, Acrobat Reader lets you copy/paste, generates excellent output
                      >>>>>> and is trivially easy to use.
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that
                      >>>>>the program contains no malicious code?
                      >>>>
                      >>>> On how much of the software you're currently using have you already
                      >>>> performed this check?
                      >>>
                      >>>(a) Non sequitur. If the source is available then I can, if I wish,
                      >>>perform this check. Whether I then choose to do so is entirely up to me.[/color]
                      >>
                      >> Nope, it's not a non sequitur: if you don't perform such scans, the
                      >> ability to perform them becomes irrelevant.
                      >>[color=darkred]
                      >>>(b) Even though it's a non sequitur, I'll answer it. I have performed this
                      >>>check on /some/ of the software I use, but not all.[/color]
                      >>
                      >> Therefore, you have no a priori reason to reject Acrobat Reader:[/color]
                      >
                      >Yes, I do.[/color]

                      Please elaborate. Which other pieces of Adobe software have bitten you
                      with their malicious code?
                      [color=blue][color=green]
                      >> you're
                      >> already using software you haven't scanned.[/color]
                      >
                      >But I'm not using /Adobe/ software that I haven't scanned.[/color]

                      Why?
                      [color=blue][color=green]
                      >> There is a nice paper by Ken Thompson,[/color]
                      >
                      >I know. I don't have a problem trusting gcc.[/color]

                      On the contrary, gcc is the ideal target for pulling such a trick,
                      precisely because its code is widely available and most people use gcc
                      to build gcc.

                      Dan
                      --
                      Dan Pop
                      DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
                      Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

                      Comment

                      • Dan Pop

                        #71
                        Re: A C tutorial

                        In <c0bg1p$7k5$5@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                        [color=blue]
                        >Dan Pop wrote:
                        >[color=green]
                        >> In <c0b9ea$3u5$3@t itan.btinternet .com> Richard Heathfield
                        >> <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                        >>[color=darkred]
                        >>>Dan Pop wrote:
                        >>>
                        >>>> In <c02530$31g$1@t itan.btinternet .com> Richard Heathfield
                        >>>> <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                        >>>>
                        >>>>>jacob navia wrote:
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>> But PDF is a widely used format,
                        >>>>>
                        >>>>>Oh, I know, I know. That doesn't mean it necessarily /should/ be.
                        >>>>
                        >>>> Name one document format with a public specification that should be
                        >>>> used instead, allowing for comparable quality of the printed output.
                        >>>> And explain why that format should be used instead of PDF.
                        >>>
                        >>>Text works for me. No public spec needed; if there's anyone out there who
                        >>>doesn't know what text is, I probably don't want to read their stuff
                        >>>anyway.
                        >>>
                        >>>As for the printed output, it looks pretty good from where I'm standing.
                        >>>If your text printout quality is low, consider investing in a better
                        >>>printer.[/color]
                        >>
                        >> Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
                        >> mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
                        >> with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.[/color]
                        >
                        >That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.
                        >Here's an example:
                        >
                        >~Iå¨~R_ß^U~Pp> Ì7
                        >Ô~Pì$~@Í×à·ÑNæ `~B^SÔ~Sm^Uéúï^ O²~R~C8!»ì^@}z~ Z¬^_~G§¬õë?y+d½ ̬ª\ê^?¥f¨w1^R¢
                        >·-.~I¸:^?q~RVÐð~C 2D~U,ÞC%|¢^Ròèz ©ü«`,ä½~XSÕ;óI÷ w"°^]ðXI^R^_?eqa#]¸ñÞ'åv^L6¥|
                        >¾HQº^X^^~^ÕU õ/^VÇ~GÒpA×É=^G~H ÞZ^GÜTÌl¢6µW~L^ ^`ñ|°³^TØ~H
                        >½C^Y¬~C©?Ëût3^ U^EçÒ^C¹1~Vþz^Q ºFÙjÿ©¶~SM~Qä~X £wÈ^Rǵ¾mH^NÝ!X H}~Ky«t0^CFTz~N ¸ðlE
                        >cx.ÙhjAA¸$| üO?Ñ~Bìõ^S~]Y;Õ0ÆH$TECÄ~I^K 0
                        >Þ~U¡§?Ç~WÉÙ Ê~I|"@¬~GdË^V¼¥ Á»/^Q~X^An~].Nè~V&¨ü<õY¶^A^ DѬåÎ^G~G7­
                        >FQ~M?I~L¨ÑaÇÚ^ HiedJè^]^WÝâ~_~HÎ~B¨SÓ^ ^X ]¶¹ï^S~DU^G~\«%e 1o^XFã~S¡¯V
                        >
                        >
                        >I can't manage anything quite so bad using text, I'm afraid.[/color]

                        If this was an attempt at being funny, you failed. If it was an attempt
                        at being stupid, you brilliantly succeeded.

                        Dan
                        --
                        Dan Pop
                        DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
                        Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

                        Comment

                        • Richard Heathfield

                          #72
                          Re: A C tutorial

                          Richard Bos wrote:

                          [PDF]
                          [color=blue]
                          > You can write your own reader, if you wish. There are systems without
                          > HTML readers, but few people would call HTML unportable, because it is
                          > at least possible to write an HTML reader for just about any platform;
                          > the same thing should be true for PDF.
                          > Hell, if you're satisfied with a plain-text representation, a PDF reader
                          > could even be on-topic in c.l.c :-)[/color]

                          What an interesting idea. :-)

                          --
                          Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
                          "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
                          C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
                          K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

                          Comment

                          • Richard Heathfield

                            #73
                            Re: A C tutorial

                            Dan Pop wrote:
                            [color=blue]
                            > In <c0bg1p$7k5$5@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield
                            > <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                            >[color=green]
                            >>Dan Pop wrote:
                            >>[color=darkred]
                            >>> Show us how you can use the plain text format to display a complex
                            >>> mathematical formula or the picture of your cat (dog, whatever)
                            >>> with a quality comparable to that obtained from a PDF document.[/color]
                            >>
                            >>That's tricky, because the quality obtained from PDF documents is so low.
                            >>Here's an example:
                            >>[/color][/color]
                            <junk characters snipped>[color=blue][color=green]
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>I can't manage anything quite so bad using text, I'm afraid.[/color]
                            >
                            > If this was an attempt at being funny, you failed. If it was an attempt
                            > at being stupid, you brilliantly succeeded.[/color]

                            It was neither. I don't expect you to understand this.

                            --
                            Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
                            "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
                            C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
                            K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

                            Comment

                            • Richard Heathfield

                              #74
                              Re: A C tutorial

                              Dan Pop wrote:
                              [color=blue]
                              > In <c0beg9$7k5$2@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield
                              > <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                              >[color=green]
                              >>I don't have a problem trusting gcc.[/color]
                              >
                              > On the contrary, gcc is the ideal target for pulling such a trick,
                              > precisely because its code is widely available and most people use gcc
                              > to build gcc.[/color]

                              Are you claiming that gcc contains a back door? If so, do you have any
                              evidence to support that claim?

                              --
                              Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
                              "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
                              C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
                              K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

                              Comment

                              • Richard Bos

                                #75
                                Re: A C tutorial

                                Richard Heathfield <invalid@addres s.co.uk.invalid > wrote:
                                [color=blue]
                                > Dan Pop wrote:
                                >[color=green]
                                > > In <c0beg9$7k5$2@s parta.btinterne t.com> Richard Heathfield
                                > > <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:
                                > >[color=darkred]
                                > >>I don't have a problem trusting gcc.[/color]
                                > >
                                > > On the contrary, gcc is the ideal target for pulling such a trick,
                                > > precisely because its code is widely available and most people use gcc
                                > > to build gcc.[/color]
                                >
                                > Are you claiming that gcc contains a back door? If so, do you have any
                                > evidence to support that claim?[/color]

                                No, he is not. He is claiming that _if_ you want to install a back door
                                of the Ken Thompson kind, _then_ gcc is your ideal target, for the
                                reasons he cites. Which is true.
                                OTOH, if you're a commercial compiler writer, you don't even need
                                Thompson's trick. Ask M$.

                                Richard

                                Comment

                                Working...