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: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-16 14:34:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!mencken.net.nih.gov!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B7C3C2F.57D11F79@spamcop.net> From: Ron Natalie X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) 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> <3B7BCEC4.202A3FA@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> <3B7C0397.3AD029C6@home.com> <3B7C0F90.EC31384B@sensor.com> <3B7C3016.9D6085A@home.com> <87vgjnvh9v.fsf@pfaffben.user.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:33:35 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.40.240.200 X-Trace: mencken.net.nih.gov 997997381 156.40.240.200 (Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:29:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:29:41 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12015 comp.lang.c:74837 comp.lang.c++:83237 Date: 2001-08-16T17:33:35-04:00 List-Id: Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > I have seen implementations return the "rounded" size for this. That > > was my only point, and the rest is nothing new. I did not refer to > > wide characters and such. > > You have never seen an ANSI/ISO C implementation with a "rounded" > size for this, because this would be a violation of the C > standards and thus it would not be a C implementation at all. > Maybe you've seen something "C-like" that does that, but it > wasn't C. Yes, never, ever seen that. Perhaps the confusion is that some compilers will (and are allowed to) add padding between the "implemenation defined place" that the string literals are stored, but that isn't reflected in sizeof, it's lost space.