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: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/06/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161687994 references: <4q8fbo$701@red.interact.net.au> <31CC75C1.5BF2AF6A@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 :-)