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: 103376,ae9506fd4dcf7090 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-21 12:44:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc01.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Concatenation and Characters References: <3DB44B9C.80007@worldnet.att.net> X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.13.56 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc01 1035229457 12.234.13.56 (Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:44:17 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:44:17 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:44:17 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30007 Date: 2002-10-21T19:44:17+00:00 List-Id: > > isn't a contraint violation? Does that mean an uninitialized variable > > *could* be taken seriously and never detected as having a random bit > > pattern? > If the compiler detects that you are attempting to use an uninitialized IIRC some machine architectures have had descriptor bits that generated a fault when that word was read before being written. What fraction of bugs are due to uninitialized variables?