News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux... by hermitdev on Saturday March 30, 2024 @10:46PM (#39880897)
That's kind of the point. It's feature detection code. If the code cleanly compiles, the feature is assumed supported, otherwise, it's assumed not present/functional. This pretty common with autotools. The gotcha here is this innocuous period is not supposed to be syntactically valid. It's meant to be subtle and always disable the feature.
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux... by asvitkine on Saturday March 30, 2024 @11:45PM (#39881215)
Shouldn't whatever is depending on xz supporting landlock be verifying that it's the case through blackbox tests or something? Otherwise a check like this even without the bug could end up disabling landlock if e.g. the compiler environment was such that a given header wasn't available...
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux... by saagarjha on Sunday March 31, 2024 @12:34AM (#39881474)
Yes, this is intentionally how autoconf is supposed to work.