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: 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 06:44:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B7BCEC4.202A3FA@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> From: Ian Wild Organization: Eurocontrol X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 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. References: <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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: ecw.eurocontrol.be!unknown@193.221.189.77 X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:44:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.221.170.178 X-Complaints-To: abuse@Belgium.EU.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 997969467 193.221.170.178 (Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:44:27 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:44:27 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11986 comp.lang.c:74709 comp.lang.c++:83087 Date: 2001-08-16T13:44:27+00:00 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! Just out of interest, can you name /any/ C compiler made since, say, 1979, for which sizeof ("ab") isn't 3?