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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,71171f53c22d92b5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-14 00:35:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:33:18 +0100 From: Erlo Haugen <_elh_@_terma_._com_> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C's trikery semantic opens up backdoor in new Linux kernel Message-ID: <20031114093318.000065b0._elh_@_terma_._com_> References: <3FB1A63C.9080200@nowhere.com> Organization: Terma A/S X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.3.0; Win32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.242.55.242 X-Trace: 1068798931 dread11.news.tele.dk 167 62.242.55.242:28975 X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2478 Date: 2003-11-14T09:33:18+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:04:02 +1300 Craig Carey wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:09:52 +0100, Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote: > ... > >Duncan Sands wrote: > ... > >>> constant value you should always state the constant first: > >>> |if ((__WCLONE|__WALL) == options) && (0 = current->uid)) > >>> > >>> wouldn't compile, either. > > ... > >No. And you? Do you really think that the linux kernel community would > >like the idea of using a *function* to get/set a plain simple integer > >variable? I already hear them scream: "It would be too inefficient. > >Especially in a *kernel*!" ;-) > > Ada 95 could be enhanced so that specified record fields could be > read-only. Some one could perhaps produce data showing that it is needed > or else it may not appear. > > De-referenced pointers can identify read-only data > "type Ptr is access constant X;". > Then Ada 95 lacks a limited pointer type, and also a pointer that can > be assigned but which lacks a "=" equality operator. > > > > Isn't this a matter of optmization? If all the function does is assigning a value, then the compiler could convert it an inline assignment: My_Variable : something; function Get_A return something is begin return My_Variable; end Get_A; then (possibly in another package) . . . This_Variable := Other_Package.Get_A; . . could be optimized (in the object code)to . . . This_Variable := Other_Package.My_Variable; . . . Just a thought, I don't know much about compiler construction, but it seems to me to be a way to go. -- Erlo Remove the underscores Sorry, I don't have time for this. I've got bugs to write.