On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 16:49 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 16:34 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 10:29 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > > Paul Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > they don't matter. they are the result of writing a byte to a FIFO to
> > > > wake up an(other) client. the contents of the byte do not make any
> > > > difference at any point.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regardless of whether this is a bug or not it would be really
> > > nice if this could be fixed. Fixing it means that other people
> > > valgrinding their apps which use the Jack libs don't see warnings
> > > about Jack.
> >
> > ++
> >
> > The last thing we need is MORE valgrind warnings..
>
> I have not looked closely at the code, but could it be considered an
> information leak if you're using a byte of unitialized data?
If you ask me using a byte of uninitialized data is an error, period
(even if technically the value of that byte isn't relevant, as in this
case).
Uninitialized /anything/ is just asking for trouble...
-DR-
Received on Mon Jun 26 08:15:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 26 2006 - 08:15:04 EEST