Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:10:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:10:44 -0400 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:33719 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:10:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:11:08 +0200 From: David Weinehall To: Ville Herva Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Stanford checker [was Re: Past CREDITS files] Message-ID: <20011004211108.Z7800@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <20011003162217.5eda53e8.juha.siltala@mail.suomi.net> <20011004034733.V7800@khan.acc.umu.se> <20011004095333.5796621a.juha.siltala@mail.suomi.net> <20011004123513.M22640@niksula.cs.hut.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20011004123513.M22640@niksula.cs.hut.fi>; from vherva@mail.niksula.cs.hut.fi on Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:35:14PM +0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:35:14PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote: > David Weinehall wrote: > > > > (...) my all-time favourite project, the Standford-checker (...) > > Speaking of which, has anybody planned to run it on 2.2 (or 2.0 ;) ) code > base? I mean, while 2.2 is not that interesting development wise, it is > still the more stable series and running checker on it might reveal even > security bugs... I don't know, but I for one would be enormously grateful if anyone ran it on the v2.0.39 tree. /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/