From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-16 11:28:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.flash.net!easynews!e420r-sjo4.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com.POSTED!clarkcox3 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. From: clarkcox3@yahoo.com (Clark S. Cox III) Message-ID: <1ey8ld5.udxvgr1rz85euN%clarkcox3@yahoo.com> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com> <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com> <9ka1jc$mgd@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com> <3B6F312F.DA4E178E@home.com> <23lok9.ioi.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B70AB15.35845A98@home.com> <3B721FF5.B7D854F6@home.com> <3B7BC847.61D7EF55@home.com> User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:27:28 EDT Organization: Bellsouth.Net Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:28:20 -0400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12004 comp.lang.c:74789 comp.lang.c++:83167 Date: 2001-08-16T14:28:20-04:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > David Thompson wrote: > > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote : > > ... > > > I wasn't talking abuse. On 5 different platforms, the sizeof "ab" could > > > yeild the answers 3,4 or 8, depending upon the platforms chosen ;-) > > > This is not a very good result for such a simple compiler request. > > > > > Not true. In any conforming implementation of either C or C++ > > sizeof "ab" is 3. Perhaps you meant one of two other things: > > Maybe that's now true with the C99 standard. But it is definitely > _not true_ of _many_ existing pre-C99 compilers! No, it was true with C89/C90 as well. If your compiler gives anything other than 3 for (sizeof "ab"), then it is broken. -- Clark S. Cox III clarkcox3@yahoo.com http://www.whereismyhead.com/clark/