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-Thread: 103376,5bc4be576204aa20 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Buffer overflow Article - CACM Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:57:40 +0000 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <43783810.6080808@obry.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1132001860 27566 62.49.19.209 (14 Nov 2005 20:57:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9rLZteBB06ZZRXTzsIKBEceAgUI= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6385 Date: 2005-11-14T20:57:40+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > This is not the whole truth. I agree that overhead caused by > run-time checks is not a big deal. But that is not the problem in my > view. Let they be 0%! The real problem is that a check may fail > while program crash is not an option. This means that there must be > some error handling. More errors may happen at run-time more complex > infrastructure one would require. Add here unit tests for these > errors etc. For information -- is your point that we should design the program (using eg SPARK) so that there isn't any need for runtime checking? (I don't think it likely that you want us not to bother to do any checking!)