"Tim Peters" <tim.one@home.com> writes: > The dict code has even more holes and in more places, but they're > generally much harder to provoke, so they've gone unnoticed for 10 > years. All in all, seemed like a good tradeoff to me <wink>. Are you suggesting that we should just leave these crashers in? They're not *particularly* hard to provoke if you know the implementation - and I was inspired to look for them by someone's report of actually running into one. Cheers, M. -- Java sucks. [...] Java on TV set top boxes will suck so hard it might well inhale people from off their sofa until their heads get wedged in the card slots. --- Jon Rabone, ucam.chat
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4