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: The Deviant <deviant@sp.org>
Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
Date: 1996/06/23
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.92.960623122941.795A-100000@switch.sp.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161705684
references: <4q8fbo$701@red.interact.net.au> <nhk9wzyjn3.fsf@paralysys>
 <31CC75C1.5BF2AF6A@jinx.sckans.edu> <dewar.835489134@schonberg>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: The Silicon Pirates
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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

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.

--Deviant