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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,71171f53c22d92b5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-12 06:11:26 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C's trikery semantic opens up backdoor in new Linux kernel
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:09:52 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <botf2c$1i2eq5$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <3FB1A63C.9080200@nowhere.com>
 <mailman.328.1068623355.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <bot7vd$1gtgp4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <mailman.332.1068645284.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068646284 52509509 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2419
Date: 2003-11-12T15:09:52+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Duncan Sands wrote:

>I was under the impression that (using preprocessor trickery) it was =
possible
>to get the equivalent of an Ada private type in C.

Uhuh. Hmm. Quite possible. I've seen a lot of things with the damn
preprocessor... ;)

>  Then everyone is forced
>to use function calls to get/set the value, unless they do type casts =
etc.
>In all cases, abuse would stand out more than it does now.

Yes.

>> For instance considering the simple rule that in a comparison with a
>>
>> constant value you should always state the constant first:
>> |if ((__WCLONE|__WALL) =3D=3D options) && (0 =3D current->uid))
>>
>> wouldn't compile, either.
>
>No, but do you really think such a style could be enforced in the linux
>kernel community?

No. And you? Do you really think that the linux kernel community would
like the idea of using a *function* to get/set a plain simple integer
variable? I already hear them scream: "It would be too inefficient.
Especially in a *kernel*!" ;-)

>Think of "herding cats".

I did. :)


Vinzent.