[langsec-discuss] LZO, subtle bugs, theorem provers

Sven Kieske svenkieske at gmail.com
Wed Jul 9 16:26:53 UTC 2014


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09.07.2014 03:00, Thomas Dullien wrote:
> Nobody is saying you can't write checkable code. All I am saying
> that for most / all of our legacy code, making it checkable is
> equivalent to rewriting it.

Nice theory, but do you have any evidence?
Furthermore: What is the
definition of legacy code, and what is the definition
of rewritten/new code?

If the definition of "legacy code" is:
legacy code == not checkable code
you have won, but I guess that would be a catch 22.

kind regards

Sven
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
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=L0RQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the langsec-discuss mailing list