Board index » cppbuilder » Re: char* literal strings are the devil's work...

2007-11-16 05:00:57 PM
cppbuilder27
Alisdair Meredith[CodeGear] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
+10 points to Alisdair.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"A patched buffer overflow doesn't mean that there's one less way attackers
can get into your system; it means that your design process was so lousy
that it permitted buffer overflows, and there are probably thousands more
lurking in your code."
Bruce Schneier
 

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
An old fart as you should have known better. <shakes head>
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"A patched buffer overflow doesn't mean that there's one less way attackers
can get into your system; it means that your design process was so lousy
that it permitted buffer overflows, and there are probably thousands more
lurking in your code."
Bruce Schneier
 

It is a consequence of my good English! I meant a typo. :)
Vladimir Grigoriev
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

{smallsort}

Vladimir Grigoriev < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
(Also, I wouldn't have had a chance to get educated by
Alisdair.)
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"A patched buffer overflow doesn't mean that there's one less way attackers
can get into your system; it means that your design process was so lousy
that it permitted buffer overflows, and there are probably thousands more
lurking in your code."
Bruce Schneier
 

Alisdair Meredith[CodeGear] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
think I know what you mean.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"A patched buffer overflow doesn't mean that there's one less way attackers
can get into your system; it means that your design process was so lousy
that it permitted buffer overflows, and there are probably thousands more
lurking in your code."
Bruce Schneier
 

As for being "an old fart" - I might have avoided it but the alternative was
not attractive. <g>
. Ed

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"A patched buffer overflow doesn't mean that there's one less way attackers
can get into your system; it means that your design process was so lousy
that it permitted buffer overflows, and there are probably thousands more
lurking in your code."
Bruce Schneier
 

"Alisdair Meredith[CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
can see things mortals cannot. For example, if the function that is
being called is defined in the same translation unit of the code, then
it can take a peek inside. So there are at least special cases where
it can easily be done.
To know that an extern function is returning a reference, there will
have to be a lot of intelligence added to the compiler and linker,
with decorated function meta-information in the .obj, and the linker
reading that information and reacting. It'd almost be a interpreted
language running at compile time, between the compiler and linker.
A function call that needs the linker to resolve can have additional
information, like a declared dependency on the called function having
a return value of static duration. The function definition can have
decorating meta-data describing attributes of the function, including
the duration of the return value (if known.) If it cannot be
determined, then the dependency fails and a warning should be
generated, etc.
Possible, but hard. :)
--
Chris (TeamB);