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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cb1f0b6d642e1dc
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!34g2000pru.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pascal Calling Convention
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e927347b-4f90-471a-b574-878e655eba89@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
References: <9b04626e-567d-408c-aab3-39b964b3ffd6@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vstkpc1rule2fv@index.ici> <ime30d$rrk$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <op.vstobjtxule2fv@index.ici>
 <F8mdnYCca6tRJBfQnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lnipv89vg7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <wccd3lf5gq6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <lny64384wx.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <wccbp0xy5hu.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <imm75p$53o$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wcck4fjc99j.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <imrgcv$22m$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.0.68.134
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1301378775 13040 127.0.0.1 (29 Mar 2011 06:06:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 34g2000pru.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.0.68.134;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16)
 Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18571
Date: 2011-03-28T23:06:15-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 28, 8:32=A0pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> Not relevant to this discussion, but I think that's sad, as a lot of the
> security problems inherent in buffer overflows would have been avoided by
> simply keeping separate code and data segments. That would prevent code o=
n
> the stack from being executed. (We found a lot of problems in Janus/Ada b=
y
> keeping the code and data segments in our DOS Extender compilers complete=
ly
> separate; it's been quite a bit harder to find those problems on Windows =
or
> Unix systems that don't properly separate them.) The problem with segment=
s
> is segments that are too small, not the basic idea.

...but aren't segments, in 32-bit machines, capable of doing 4GB?
But I see what you mean about data/code segment separation... though
it can
also be a source of frustration if you want to do some self-modifying
code.