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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
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: 2001-08-03 05:08:52 PST
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <tmfvrpmb575l80@corp.supernews.com>
 <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com>
 <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com>
 <L5Y97.14163$ar1.47661@www.newsranger.com>
 <tmgrs9anc69q95@corp.supernews.com>
 <dale-8EE262.08123502082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <Xz%97.2632$B37.106689@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
 <dale-FCF3F9.09002402082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <3b690549.1112022840@news.worldonline.nl> <3b692412$1@pull.gecm.com>
 <3b6a47b6.1194575915@news.worldonline.nl>
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
 service attack.
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:06:55 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
NNTP-Posting-Host: sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3b6a919c$1@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 3 Aug 2001 12:57:16 GMT, sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11191 comp.lang.c:71878
 comp.lang.c++:79625 comp.lang.functional:7252
Date: 2001-08-03T13:06:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Bos <info@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:3b6a47b6.1194575915@news.worldonline.nl...
[snip expletive :0)]
> > 1) you can always turn these checks "off" for speed
> > 2) there are constructs that will allow the compiler
> >    to not insert them in the first place (e.g. using
> >    <type_name>'Range when looping through an array
> >    indexed by <type_name>
>
> Kinda defeat the point of the Original Troll, don't they, though?

not really, certainly not point 2) and given that MS seem
keen to actually produce slower code with every release, I
would assume they would leave these checks in even where
efficiency needs are more demanding than safety needs. ;-)