Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #383248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-03-02 17:13 -0600 |
| Last post | 2024-03-12 16:00 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-03-02 17:13 -0600
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 00:05 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 13:42 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" John McCue <jmccue@neutron.jmcunx.com> - 2024-03-03 02:10 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-03 02:23 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-03-03 11:11 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 03:30 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-03 08:54 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 20:11 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 13:49 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-03 22:11 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 23:27 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-07 06:46 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-03 08:52 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-03 11:10 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-03 12:01 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-03 16:03 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-03 18:18 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-03 21:23 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 14:01 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-04 09:44 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 11:38 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 12:46 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 12:36 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 12:41 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-05 10:01 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 12:51 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-06 11:43 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 14:18 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-08 13:23 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-09 13:25 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-09 14:16 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-09 14:18 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 23:31 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-04 17:05 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-04 18:24 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-05 02:46 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-05 11:23 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 20:10 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 14:06 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 23:29 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 15:53 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-04 01:00 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 11:44 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-04 21:07 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-05 00:59 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 01:54 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 22:18 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 07:06 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 23:10 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-05 11:11 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 22:58 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-06 14:02 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-06 12:28 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-07 00:00 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-07 11:35 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-07 13:44 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-07 16:36 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 17:18 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-03-08 14:41 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-08 15:07 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-08 15:15 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-08 17:55 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-08 10:08 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-29 00:05 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 17:14 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-29 01:58 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 19:01 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-29 04:28 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 13:40 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" paavo512 <paavo@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-04-29 12:45 +0300
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 13:42 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-30 16:46 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 16:35 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-08 08:25 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-08 12:57 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-08 15:32 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-08 16:57 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-29 00:02 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2024-04-29 08:55 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 01:45 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2024-03-06 14:30 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 01:46 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 18:00 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 02:37 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 20:36 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 01:44 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-03-14 15:39 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-03-04 00:44 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 12:57 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 13:48 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-03 15:31 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 00:09 -0600
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 07:07 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-05 14:56 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-03 22:14 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 14:15 -0800
[OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-03-04 16:39 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-04 17:21 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-07 06:48 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 23:01 -0800
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-07 08:15 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 08:23 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-07 10:20 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 06:23 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 06:21 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-07 14:34 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 07:58 -0800
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-03-07 18:09 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-03-07 14:39 -0500
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-03-07 11:23 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 06:27 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-08 23:27 -0800
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 12:21 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-03-09 15:02 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 23:11 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2024-03-21 14:47 +0300
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-03-09 10:40 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-09 11:56 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-03-10 14:03 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-10 19:07 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 12:25 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-09 13:11 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-09 23:13 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-03-10 00:13 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-10 10:17 +0200
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-10 13:35 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-10 17:15 +0000
avoiding strdup() (was: Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig.) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-03-09 13:19 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-03-09 15:25 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-09 16:37 -0800
Re: avoiding strdup() Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-10 10:11 +0200
Re: avoiding strdup() Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-10 13:38 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-10 17:12 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-10 18:47 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-10 19:20 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 16:23 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-11 18:50 +0200
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-11 17:05 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-11 19:35 +0200
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-11 18:06 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-11 20:29 +0200
Re: avoiding strdup() Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 19:57 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 10:13 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-11 17:58 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 11:28 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-11 17:58 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 11:30 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 19:45 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 13:11 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-11 17:00 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-11 17:52 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-11 18:10 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-11 19:11 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 12:34 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 01:12 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 18:20 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 15:40 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 15:31 -0700
Re: avoiding strdup() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-13 09:50 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-12 15:55 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 22:44 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-12 23:50 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-03-13 03:46 -0400
Re: avoiding strdup() David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-13 16:08 +0100
Re: avoiding strdup() Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-29 00:53 +0000
Re: avoiding strdup() i@fuzy.me - 2024-04-29 22:38 +0800
Re: avoiding strdup() steve <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:36 -0400
Re: avoiding strdup() Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-10 10:02 +0000
Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-03-07 17:52 +0042
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 00:02 -0600
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2024-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 16:06 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-04 05:43 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 13:15 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-04 21:26 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 13:28 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 13:29 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 02:46 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 19:40 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 04:43 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 21:23 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 07:07 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 13:48 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-06 00:25 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 22:01 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 23:42 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 16:21 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-05 03:32 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 19:42 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 00:03 -0600
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 07:08 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-05 11:27 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 13:01 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-05 21:24 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 13:44 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 14:11 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 14:34 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-06 14:31 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-06 13:50 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-06 16:18 +0200
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-06 14:38 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-06 19:46 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-06 19:50 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-03-06 14:14 -0500
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-06 19:50 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-06 21:13 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-08 21:36 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-12 00:07 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 20:05 -0700
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-03-06 19:27 -0500
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 03:06 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-03-07 14:28 -0500
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 23:44 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 07:42 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 14:14 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 13:58 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 14:02 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-06 14:34 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 14:13 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 23:43 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-08 09:01 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-12 00:03 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 11:54 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-04 15:41 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-04 15:28 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 18:51 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-04 21:11 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-05 11:31 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-06 00:25 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-06 14:40 +0100
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> - 2024-03-04 12:18 +0000
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 12:52 -0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 21:51 +0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 15:43 +0800
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 15:54 -0300
Re: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-03-12 16:00 -0300
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-12 15:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <ZV_HN.561554$xHn7.260048@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #383535 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> On 11/03/2024 17:00, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 10/03/2024 18:47, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes: >>>>>> On 2024-03-10, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:37:19 -0800 >>>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> strdup() and strndup() are being added to the C23 standard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is justification? >>>>>> >>>>>> strdup is required by POSIX already and thus widely implemented. >>>>>> Many programmers who are not into standards already assume it's in C. >>>>>> >>>>>> For decades, portable programs have been doing things like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> #if HAVE_STRDUP >>>>>> #define xstrdup(s) strdup(s) >>>>>> #else >>>>>> char *xstrdup(const char *); // own definition >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> >>>>>>> What strdup() can do better, for any chosen value of better, than >>>>>>> strlen()+malloc()+memcpy() ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not take up space in every application for a common library routine. >>>>> >>>>> It's a form of lazy programming. I've seen a lot of open source >>>>> code that uses strdup without checking for failure and frequently >>>>> "forgetting" to free the result. >>>> >>>> And it is probably more likely that machine with many gigabytes of RAM >>> Actually, your assumptions that: >>> 1) strdup is the only allocation function used by an application >>> 2) all strings are "short" >>> are both flawed. >>> >> The bank has many billions. But there is a banking crisis on and it is >> about to fail. And someone, somewhere, will be that man who tries to >> withdraw some money and is told "no". But how likely is that man to be >> you with your 20 pounds at the cashpoint? How likely is it to be >> another bank making a cash call for a 100 million or so? > >If I withdraw 20 pounds from my bank, I'll bet you that 20 pounds that >the bank still checks whether it has the money. And as for "how likely it is that the bank will not be able to honor withdrawal requests", I refer Malcolm to 1931. "In 1930, 1,352 banks held more than $853 million in deposits; in 1931, one year later, 2,294 banks failed with nearly $1.7 billion in deposits."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-12 22:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <usqlsu$hqqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383553 |
On 12/03/2024 15:55, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 11/03/2024 17:00, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On 10/03/2024 18:47, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>>> Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes: >>>>>>> On 2024-03-10, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:37:19 -0800 >>>>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> strdup() and strndup() are being added to the C23 standard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is justification? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> strdup is required by POSIX already and thus widely implemented. >>>>>>> Many programmers who are not into standards already assume it's in C. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For decades, portable programs have been doing things like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #if HAVE_STRDUP >>>>>>> #define xstrdup(s) strdup(s) >>>>>>> #else >>>>>>> char *xstrdup(const char *); // own definition >>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What strdup() can do better, for any chosen value of better, than >>>>>>>> strlen()+malloc()+memcpy() ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not take up space in every application for a common library routine. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a form of lazy programming. I've seen a lot of open source >>>>>> code that uses strdup without checking for failure and frequently >>>>>> "forgetting" to free the result. >>>>> >>>>> And it is probably more likely that machine with many gigabytes of RAM >>>> Actually, your assumptions that: >>>> 1) strdup is the only allocation function used by an application >>>> 2) all strings are "short" >>>> are both flawed. >>>> >>> The bank has many billions. But there is a banking crisis on and it is >>> about to fail. And someone, somewhere, will be that man who tries to >>> withdraw some money and is told "no". But how likely is that man to be >>> you with your 20 pounds at the cashpoint? How likely is it to be >>> another bank making a cash call for a 100 million or so? >> >> If I withdraw 20 pounds from my bank, I'll bet you that 20 pounds that >> the bank still checks whether it has the money. > > And as for "how likely it is that the bank will not be able > to honor withdrawal requests", I refer Malcolm to 1931. > > "In 1930, 1,352 banks held more than $853 million in > deposits; in 1931, one year later, 2,294 banks failed > with nearly $1.7 billion in deposits." > So 2,294 Americans in 1932 had the experience "you want to withdraw cash? OK, here we go, oh sorry, that just took us over the edge and the bank is now closed". Everyone else, either "here's your money", or "sorry, the bank has now closed, no more withdrawal requests". -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-12 23:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <rT5IN.564442$xHn7.452709@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #383563 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/03/2024 15:55, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 11/03/2024 17:00, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> On 10/03/2024 18:47, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>>>> Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes: >>>>>>>> On 2024-03-10, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:37:19 -0800 >>>>>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> strdup() and strndup() are being added to the C23 standard. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is justification? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> strdup is required by POSIX already and thus widely implemented. >>>>>>>> Many programmers who are not into standards already assume it's in C. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For decades, portable programs have been doing things like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> #if HAVE_STRDUP >>>>>>>> #define xstrdup(s) strdup(s) >>>>>>>> #else >>>>>>>> char *xstrdup(const char *); // own definition >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What strdup() can do better, for any chosen value of better, than >>>>>>>>> strlen()+malloc()+memcpy() ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not take up space in every application for a common library routine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a form of lazy programming. I've seen a lot of open source >>>>>>> code that uses strdup without checking for failure and frequently >>>>>>> "forgetting" to free the result. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it is probably more likely that machine with many gigabytes of RAM >>>>> Actually, your assumptions that: >>>>> 1) strdup is the only allocation function used by an application >>>>> 2) all strings are "short" >>>>> are both flawed. >>>>> >>>> The bank has many billions. But there is a banking crisis on and it is >>>> about to fail. And someone, somewhere, will be that man who tries to >>>> withdraw some money and is told "no". But how likely is that man to be >>>> you with your 20 pounds at the cashpoint? How likely is it to be >>>> another bank making a cash call for a 100 million or so? >>> >>> If I withdraw 20 pounds from my bank, I'll bet you that 20 pounds that >>> the bank still checks whether it has the money. >> >> And as for "how likely it is that the bank will not be able >> to honor withdrawal requests", I refer Malcolm to 1931. >> >> "In 1930, 1,352 banks held more than $853 million in >> deposits; in 1931, one year later, 2,294 banks failed >> with nearly $1.7 billion in deposits." >> >So 2,294 Americans in 1932 had the experience "you want to withdraw >cash? OK, here we go, oh sorry, that just took us over the edge and the >bank is now closed". Everyone else, either "here's your money", or >"sorry, the bank has now closed, no more withdrawal requests". I'm pretty sure the quote above from Wikipedia is written in a form of English that even the English understand, so I don't see how you came up with the idea that only 2,294 Americans were affected when 2,294 banks failed. Nor to I see the relevence to checking the return value of strdup(3).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-13 03:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <usrlkt$r66p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383567 |
On 3/12/24 19:50, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: ... >> So 2,294 Americans in 1932 had the experience "you want to withdraw >> cash? OK, here we go, oh sorry, that just took us over the edge and the >> bank is now closed". Everyone else, either "here's your money", or >> "sorry, the bank has now closed, no more withdrawal requests". > > I'm pretty sure the quote above from Wikipedia is written in > a form of English that even the English understand, so I don't see > how you came up with the idea that only 2,294 Americans were > affected when 2,294 banks failed. Every bank fails at some particular time, when it runs out of money. There is always one particular claim on that bank's resources that caused it to run out and for some reason he's focusing on those claims. Other Americans also had problems due to the bank having already failed, but at most 2294 Americans made claims that actually triggered that failure. I haven't a clue as to why he considers that fact important, but he has correctly made that distinction. Actually, it may be that in some cases a bank closed immediately as soon as a successful withdrawal request left it with too little funds, so the number might actually be less that 2294. > Nor to I see the relevence to checking the return value > of strdup(3). Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-13 16:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <ussfgi$10iku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383573 |
On 13/03/2024 08:46, James Kuyper wrote: > On 3/12/24 19:50, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > ... >>> So 2,294 Americans in 1932 had the experience "you want to withdraw >>> cash? OK, here we go, oh sorry, that just took us over the edge and the >>> bank is now closed". Everyone else, either "here's your money", or >>> "sorry, the bank has now closed, no more withdrawal requests". >> >> I'm pretty sure the quote above from Wikipedia is written in >> a form of English that even the English understand, so I don't see >> how you came up with the idea that only 2,294 Americans were >> affected when 2,294 banks failed. > > Every bank fails at some particular time, when it runs out of money. > There is always one particular claim on that bank's resources that > caused it to run out and for some reason he's focusing on those claims. > Other Americans also had problems due to the bank having already failed, > but at most 2294 Americans made claims that actually triggered that > failure. I haven't a clue as to why he considers that fact important, > but he has correctly made that distinction. > > Actually, it may be that in some cases a bank closed immediately as soon > as a successful withdrawal request left it with too little funds, so the > number might actually be less that 2294. > There are all kinds of different scenarios possible, leading to all sorts of different numbers for the people caught in exceptional circumstances during bank failure. I think the least likely conceivable possibility is to imagine that the failure of a bank is an instantaneous event that happens in the middle of a single withdrawal. The analogue with software would be a program with thousands of threads running at once, across dozens of cores, on a system that is running many such programs. Each thread will be allocating and deallocating memory asynchronously. The system will have virtual memory, and lots of other IO going on that affects the speed of the VM backing. To imagine that a /single/ normal allocation attempt turns that from a fully working system to a fully failed system is clearly absurd. And the same applies to banks. >> Nor to I see the relevence to checking the return value >> of strdup(3). > > Agreed. Also agreed. Analogies are fine if they shed some light on the topic under discussion. This one started out badly (it seems to have been a suggestion that some bad things only occur very rarely, so you should pretend they won't happen to you), and it got rapidly less realistic and less relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 00:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <v0mr1e$1bfnq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383508 |
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:47:42 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> I've seen a lot of open source code
> that uses strdup without checking for failure and frequently
> "forgetting" to free the result.
I was looking at the systemd source code the other day, and came across a
lot of this sort of thing:
_cleanup_free_ char *link = NULL;
Now, what do you suppose “_cleanup_free_” does?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | i@fuzy.me |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 22:38 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <87v840z11t.fsf@fuzy.me> |
| In reply to | #384405 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > I was looking at the systemd source code the other day, and came across a > lot of this sort of thing: > > _cleanup_free_ char *link = NULL; > > Now, what do you suppose “_cleanup_free_” does? It's a dark magic of GCC to automatically free the memory when pointer goes out of scope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | steve <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 23:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <87ttji19wd.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #384411 |
i@fuzy.me writes:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
< > I was looking at the systemd source code the other day, and came across a
< > lot of this sort of thing:
< >
< > _cleanup_free_ char *link = NULL;
< >
< > Now, what do you suppose “_cleanup_free_” does?
>
I usually use void * , probably a struct of some sort for marking
garbage.
> It's a dark magic of GCC to automatically free the memory when pointer
> goes out of scope.
Try alloca - for stack loading; there is a garbage collector for C . The
Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative can be used in place of malloc.
with gcc you can stack allocate with nested functions, like in object pascal.
``
A “nested function” is a function defined inside another function.
Nested functions are supported as an extension in GNU C, but are not
supported by GNU C++.
The nested function's name is local to the block where it is defined.
For example, here we define a nested function named ‘square’, and call
it twice:
foo (double a, double b)
{
double square (double z) { return z * z; }
return square (a) + square (b);
}
from the gcc info manual.
''
have fun; gcc is a greate compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-10 10:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: avoiding strdup() |
| Message-ID | <usk0er$2td02$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383491 |
On 09/03/2024 13:19, vallor wrote: > > I asked Google about it [strdup] being a POSIX extension > added at that late date, and it gave me an answer > about the C standard: > > "C9X London meeting update" > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c/c/pMaEU_8Rb7w That is from 1997 ... And shows just how useful a searchable usenet archive can be. Pity google threw their toys out of the pram.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-07 17:52 +0042 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] UTF-8 sig. Was: "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity Risks" |
| Message-ID | <87bk7q9ddx.fsf@tilde.institute> |
| In reply to | #383440 |
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> writes: > Since it is my newsreader that is corrupting it, it is the fault of the > newsreader, and therefore not within my jurisdiction of a problem to fix. Looks broken here too and I damn do not care. I just find all these replies the sig causes annoying. That'll be not so easy to downscore. *sigh!* Santarella, Easter-Bunny or FSM ... please bring the nigglers some bottles of OmmmMMMmmmMMMmmm... and a new hobby! -- I do not bite, I just want to play.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-05 00:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <us6cgq$3khma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383283 |
On 3/3/2024 4:14 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote: > Frankly, i think we should all be programming in macros over assembly > anyway. Been there, done that. No more. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-03 23:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB12AC133C49E3hueydlltampabayrrcom@135.181.20.170> |
| In reply to | #383248 |
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in news:us0brl$246bf$1@dont-email.me: > "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity > Risks" > > https://www.pcmag.com/news/white-house-to-developers-using-c-plus-plus- > invites-cybersecurity-risks > > "The Biden administration backs a switch to more memory-safe > programming languages. The tech industry sees their point, but it > won't be easy." > > No. The feddies want to regulate software development very much. > They have been talking about it for at least 20 years now. This is a > very bad thing. > > Lynn I was thinking about this wrt other alledgedly more secure languages. They can be hacked just as easily as C and C++ and many other languages. The government should worry about things they really need to control, which is less not more, IMHO. They obviously know very little about computer development. David Professional developer for nearly 45 years
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-03 16:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us33a0$2ot8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383289 |
On 3/3/2024 3:59 PM, David LaRue wrote: > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in > news:us0brl$246bf$1@dont-email.me: > >> "White House to Developers: Using C or C++ Invites Cybersecurity >> Risks" >> >> https://www.pcmag.com/news/white-house-to-developers-using-c-plus-plus- >> invites-cybersecurity-risks >> >> "The Biden administration backs a switch to more memory-safe >> programming languages. The tech industry sees their point, but it >> won't be easy." >> >> No. The feddies want to regulate software development very much. >> They have been talking about it for at least 20 years now. This is a >> very bad thing. >> >> Lynn > > I was thinking about this wrt other alledgedly more secure languages. They > can be hacked just as easily as C and C++ and many other languages. The > government should worry about things they really need to control, which is > less not more, IMHO. They obviously know very little about computer > development. [...] I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that ADA solves all issues...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 05:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <us3n2c$306pr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383290 |
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:06:24 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that [Ada] > solves all issues... It did make a difference. Did you know the life-support system on the International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you would trust C++ code to, let’s face it. And here <https://devclass.com/2022/11/08/spark-as-good-as-rust-for-safer-coding-adacore-cites-nvidia-case-study/> is a project to make it even safer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 13:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us5dl8$3b8mq$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383294 |
On 3/3/2024 9:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 16:06:24 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> I remember a while back when some people would try to tell me that [Ada] >> solves all issues... > > It did make a difference. Did you know the life-support system on the > International Space Station was written in Ada? Not something you > would trust C++ code to, let’s face it. Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that were written in say, C? > > And here > <https://devclass.com/2022/11/08/spark-as-good-as-rust-for-safer-coding-adacore-cites-nvidia-case-study/> > is a project to make it even safer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <us5ear$3besu$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383330 |
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that > were written in say, C? The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us5eee$3b8mq$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383332 |
On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that >> were written in say, C? > > The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control. Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 13:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us5egg$3b8mq$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383333 |
On 3/4/2024 1:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that >>> were written in say, C? >> >> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control. > > Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group? http://fractallife247.com/test/hmac_cipher/ver_0_0_0_1?ct_hmac_cipher=7e7e1c663477d02a3adbf99372cfa1e0e719dcdabd20b50c27000dba3eb5dc342e3e0403607bb40f00b999b6bc24559ca0858b445c097a3848b457b1028ab0d78aa57934cd00b99dd080f80bf7791a11d5df6435fb0e
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-05 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <us6129$3imua$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383333 |
On 04/03/2024 21:28, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that >>> were written in say, C? >> >> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control. > > Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group? There's an underlying reality there. The less code you have, the less that can go wrong. So don;t just knock out code, but think a bit about what you do and do not really need. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-04 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us647l$3j82c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #383358 |
On 3/4/2024 6:46 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 04/03/2024 21:28, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 3/4/2024 1:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:15:20 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> Would you trust a "safe" language that had some critical libraries that >>>> were written in say, C? >>> >>> The less C code you write, the easier it is to keep it under control. >> >> Excellent comment in a C group. Well, you should move to another group? > > There's an underlying reality there. The less code you have, the less > that can go wrong. Well, hard to disagree with that. :^D > So don;t just knock out code, but think a bit about > what you do and do not really need. Indeed. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web