 | | From: | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Subject: | Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:19:02 GMT |
|
|
 | BRG wrote:
> You assume wrong. The mechanism was hopeless because almost nobody had
> it. Had the mechanism been a part of the language this would not have
> been the result.
What are you talking about, ? That is part of
any C implementation that conforms to the 1999 standard,
and has long been provided by "64-bit" platforms. If you
want to port your apps to other implementations, then you
can easily provide your own implementation along with your
app source code. I put one into the public domain many
years ago, so there is no good excuse for not having it.
|
|
| | From: | BRG | | Subject: | Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:53:00 +0000 |
|
|
| Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> BRG wrote:
>
>>You assume wrong. The mechanism was hopeless because almost nobody had
>>it. Had the mechanism been a part of the language this would not have
>>been the result.
> What are you talking about, ? That is part of
> any C implementation that conforms to the 1999 standard,
> and has long been provided by "64-bit" platforms. If you
The C99 standard is not going to help until it is widely supported,
which it isn't yet. I did try to use this header file and very quickly
found that few users had it.
> want to port your apps to other implementations, then you
> can easily provide your own implementation along with your
> app source code.
I do provide my own definitions (as do many others) using #ifdef
spaghetti. The point I am making is that I wouldn't have to if the
_language_ handled this effectively.
I put one into the public domain many
> years ago, so there is no good excuse for not having it.
Tell that to all the people out there who don't have it. In my
experience few did when I tried this some time ago.
Brian Gladman
|
|
| | From: | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Subject: | Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:11:42 -0500 |
|
|
| BRG wrote:
> Tell that to all the people out there who don't have it.
Dammit, I said that *you* should have provided it
*with* your code that used it, since you were targeting
non-C99 implementations.
|
|
| | From: | BRG | | Subject: | Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:18:14 +0000 |
|
|
| Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> BRG wrote:
>
>> Tell that to all the people out there who don't have it.
>
> Dammit, I said that *you* should have provided it
> *with* your code that used it, since you were targeting
> non-C99 implementations.
No because I then take on responsibility for distributing someone else's
code, something which has significant and ongoing support costs for me.
I can pass these costs onto my end users by providing a reference to
where it is available but this just passes the overhead onto them.
If the language had got this right in the first place, we would not have
to cope with these sorts of problems.
Brian Gladman
|
|
