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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-02 06:44:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B693FAE.B7CEB047@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <9ka1e1$b5h$2@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> <3B688D21.810C5706@eton.powernet.co.uk> <9ka33g$b5h$4@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:44:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.169.51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 996759883 12.90.169.51 (Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:44:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:44:43 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11081 comp.lang.c:71631 comp.lang.c++:79327 comp.lang.functional:7183 Date: 2001-08-02T13:44:43+00:00 List-Id: Aaron Denney wrote: > > Markus Mottl wrote: > > That's what I meant ("implementation" rather than "compiler"), but I was > > thinking of languages that do not have interpreters (e.g. C), though in > > theory interpreters are possible for any language. > > C has a few interpreters for it, actually. (Well, some are not quite C, or > don't implement everything.) > > CINT, EiC, and ICI seem to be the most popular ones. I've used one > in a job a few years back that was an extension language. It was nice > because if the interpreted version wasn't fast enough, you could compile the > extension and load it as a dll. (I don't recall the name, and it was hacked by > the company to export our own bindings. The only non-compliance I had found was > that adjacent string literals were not merged.) I took a look at ch, from http://www.softintegration.com some time ago. It is not bad, but unfortunately fails in the acid test of compiling valid C99 (or 89) code, largely due to the excessive use of new reserved words. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@XXXXworldnet.att.net) (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified) mailto:uce@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)