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,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-27 04:09:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net> <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2lb33b.7d6.ln@jellix.jlfencey.com> <1045772065.590669@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1045839283.86671@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1046347769 15171 129.241.83.78 (27 Feb 2003 12:09:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:09:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34661 Date: 2003-02-27T12:09:29+00:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: >> So in reality it wasn't a buffer overflow as Ada caught it, > > I think the English meaning of the term "buffer overflow" is clear; > the program tried to write more data to the buffer than it had room > for. [..] > The _consequences_ of the buffer overflow are different in C and Ada; > in Ada the overflow is caught, and handled in a way that does not > allow security breaches. > > In poorly programmed C, the buffer overflow is not caught, and does > (possibly) allow security breaches. [..] > I suppose the term "buffer overflow" has been overloaded to mean > "buffer overflow that allows security breaches". But in this context, > I think the more narrow meaning is appropriate. No, the problem arrises when English meaning /= English usage. If you go saying that your program had an buffer overflow, everybody will think you had a security hole in it and that somebody took/could take advantage of this. I think it is better to look at common usage and follow this eventhough it might not follow the English spec file ;-) What about : It was a terribly good cake... (we have the same in our language by the way) -- Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ -- "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov