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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: john@polo.demon.co.uk (John Winters)
Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
Date: 1996/06/23
Message-ID: <DtGsEq.HzL@polo.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161719663
x-nntp-posting-host: polo.demon.co.uk
references: <4q8fbo$701@red.interact.net.au>
 <31CC75C1.5BF2AF6A@jinx.sckans.edu> <dewar.835489134@schonberg>
 <Pine.LNX.3.92.960623122941.795A-100000@switch.sp.org>
organization: Wallingford
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Pine.LNX.3.92.960623122941.795A-100000@switch.sp.org>,
The Deviant  <deviant@sp.org> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 1996, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> Date: 22 Jun 1996 20:20:19 -0400
>> From: Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu>
>> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c, comp.lang.ada
>> Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
>>
>>
>>  that c code *will* have to be changed...
>> But I am curious why it did seg fault sooner?
>> (BTW, That's why I'm posting this back to comp.lang.c)
>> Can anyone tell me why this doesn't seg fault sooner?
>> OS is Linux 2.0, GNU g++"
>>
>> I have no idea why you expect a seg fault at any particular point. If
>> you get a seg fault at all, it is certaily *very* implementation
>> dependent where it will occur, since who knows how the compiler lays
>> out memory, for example, it may put critical data for interfacing with
>> the operating system right after your array so that much more interesting
>> things happen than a segfault, such as destruction of your system disk :-)
>>
>
>But, the variable was initialized as

was defined as

>char blah[5];
>
>which means it goes out of its bouts as soon as it tries to access
>blah[5], and thats when SIGSEGV, by definition, should occur.

The only occasion on which SIGSEGV is defined as occuring is on
an explicit call to raise().

John

-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.