Re: Verifying Toolchain Semantics

[Ian Grant <ian.a.n.grant@googlemail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> wrote:
> Ian, please stop posting to guile-devel.  You've made your points, and
> I've even called attention to what I think is the best exposition of
> your ideas.  At this point you're just repeating yourself and hurling
> gratuitous insults.  Enough!

Well, it's insulting when you speak to me like a child, and when you
make childish suggestions about my motives for posting to this list.
But I don't complain, and I certainly wouldn't attempt what William
calls "silencing tactics".
.
Remember, we're making a movie about this, and the whole world is
watching what we say to each other, and it is all a matter of public
record, distributed across thousands of independent machines,

I am responding constructively to questions asked me by a guile
developer who is also an official representative of the FSF. Will the
FSF prevent me from doing so on an FSF forum. And if so, will any
guile developers respond to the mails I sent regarding guile? The one
about throw-handlers, and the one about block-allocations of cons
cells, the one about a liightning interface for guile. (People will
want to know why you ignored that.) and the one about 50,000 lines of
shell script with no explanation for things like this which are
basically setting up for an exploit. Once this sets the environment
variable, any programs knows it's on a back-level Solaris install, and
can infer a catalogue of exploits. But why is this check necessary
anyway? I know this not guile-specific, but it relates to my original
suggestion which was to replace autoconf with an abstract prolog
database for inferring system properties from formal descriptions, and
which wouldn't be vulnerable to this sort of nonsense., This is
something to which guile is ideally suited.

In short, no I won't stop responding to people who make stupid
comments on this list, either about me, or things I've written on this
list.

Speaking of which, what is the name and version of the program that
your emacs uses for "pdf->png" conversion? Your report, blaming me for
sending bad PDF, indicates a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of
what a program meant to do when it reads a file that supposed to be in
a defined format.

And lastly, just be happy we're not discussing the FSFs 2013 financial
filing, which you presumably haven't read, because it's a PDF file ...

Ian

as_nl='
'
export as_nl
# Printing a long string crashes Solaris 7 /usr/bin/printf.
as_echo='\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'
as_echo=$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo
as_echo=$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo$as_echo
# Prefer a ksh shell builtin over an external printf program on Solaris,
# but without wasting forks for bash or zsh.
if test -z "$BASH_VERSION$ZSH_VERSION" \
    && (test "X`print -r -- $as_echo`" = "X$as_echo") 2>/dev/null; then
  as_echo='print -r --'
  as_echo_n='print -rn --'
elif (test "X`printf %s $as_echo`" = "X$as_echo") 2>/dev/null; then
  as_echo='printf %s\n'
  as_echo_n='printf %s'
else
  if test "X`(/usr/ucb/echo -n -n $as_echo) 2>/dev/null`" = "X-n $as_echo"; then
    as_echo_body='eval /usr/ucb/echo -n "$1$as_nl"'
    as_echo_n='/usr/ucb/echo -n'
  else
    as_echo_body='eval expr "X$1" : "X\\(.*\\)"'
    as_echo_n_body='eval
      arg=$1;
      case $arg in #(
      *"$as_nl"*)
    expr "X$arg" : "X\\(.*\\)$as_nl";
    arg=`expr "X$arg" : ".*$as_nl\\(.*\\)"`;;
      esac;
      expr "X$arg" : "X\\(.*\\)" | tr -d "$as_nl"
    '
    export as_echo_n_body
    as_echo_n='sh -c $as_echo_n_body as_echo'
  fi
  export as_echo_body
  as_echo='sh -c $as_echo_body as_echo'
fi


>      Mark