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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-14 05:28:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr15.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "cppwiz" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b6a453c.1193942215@news.worldonline.nl> <9keejl$fhj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B6F5BF6.1E22543B@home.com> <3B706538.5AB33833@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B70BDA5.575D8E6A@home.com> <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca> Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.10.112.87 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com 997791923 ST000 24.10.112.87 (Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:25:23 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:25:23 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: SCSGGFS@XK[UPGL\THAN\FLEFKUJBQ\KLY\@LWMHBASPUYIBNVWE@KKZETYPISWI[FCEZABLM^[F_NGA_^T_NWPFHNSKHQXKJ@X^R^_C^\RN@OD_XKFXXVCCE\GQJDJNGDY_ZOFNRY]WWK_PGD_CNIW^ECXFF\KIBA^Y@@OB@[@ZQSPETL@NMU@DEVUKA_BL Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:25:23 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11907 comp.lang.c++:82434 Date: 2001-08-14T12:25:23+00:00 List-Id: [Note: headers have been trimmed] "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:Hoxc7.3953$NJ6.15706@www.newsranger.com... > In article <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca>, Chris Wolfe says... > That's a odd complaint. Ada's just as flexible as C. You just have to announce > to the compiler (and not so incidently, the human source code reader) when you > are doing something unsafe, but its not prevented. Also *every* Ada compiler (as > opposed to "most" C++ compilers) has support for inline assembler. Its actually > in the standard... The C++ standard guarantees that there is at least a platform in place for inline assembler. I don't see how its realistically possible to make a promise stronger than that. Unless I missed something, the Ada standard provides a similar guarantee for inline assembler. In both cases, the implementation can conform to the standard by providing no inline assembler functionality.