Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #69815
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: VMS |
| Date | 2025-07-21 18:44 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <105lu95$2a92$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <20250625094418.00007fd2@gmail.com> <v_2dnfjqXOtB4sH1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <105iv02$3cuhr$2@dont-email.me> <wwvzfcy0z3n.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <20250721091242.00007573@gmail.com> |
On 7/21/25 17:12, John Ames wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:42:04 +0100 > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Conservative upper bounds of this kind address two issues: >> >> 1) The possibility that you made a mistake in working out the upper >> bound. Off-by-one errors are such a common category that they get >> their own name; adding even 1 byte of headroom neutralizes them. >> >> If you think only “sloppy” programmers make this kind of mistake >> then you’re deluded. A more competent programmer may make fewer >> mistakes but no human is perfect. >> >> 2) Approximation can make analysis easier. Why spend an hour proving >> that the maximum size something can be is 37 bytes if a few seconds >> mental arithmetic will prove it’s at most 64 bytes? (Unless you >> have 1980s quantities of RAM, of course.) > > Sure, memory is cheap and we can often afford reasonably over-specced > buffer sizes in Our Modern Age - but the fundamental problem remains. > Treating "a little extra just to be on the safe side" as a ward against > buffer overruns or other boundary errors is pretty much guaranteed to > run into trouble down the line, and no amount of "nobody's perfect...!" > will change that. If you're not working in a language that does bounds- > checking for you, and your design is not one where you can say with > *100% certainty* that boundary errors are literally impossible, CHECK > YER DANG BOUNDS. Simple as that. > An upper bound is certain. It is a fundamental concept in mathematical proofs. It is not just giving a bit extra and hoping for the best.
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: VMS Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-20 14:37 +0000
Re: VMS Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 08:42 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 09:12 -0700
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-21 18:44 +0100
Re: VMS Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 20:47 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 13:31 -0700
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-23 07:22 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-23 08:04 -0700
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-23 08:44 -0700
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-23 20:04 +0100
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-23 22:47 +0000
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-24 09:56 +0100
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-23 21:53 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-23 14:28 -0700
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-24 00:29 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 08:05 -0700
Re: VMS Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-24 21:51 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 15:06 -0700
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-25 07:06 +0100
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-25 10:39 -0700
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-26 17:54 +0100
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-26 18:02 +0100
Re: VMS Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-07-27 04:04 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 01:50 -0400
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-27 12:07 +0100
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-27 10:23 +0100
Re: VMS Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-27 10:55 +0100
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 21:23 -0400
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 04:45 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-28 02:14 -0400
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-28 13:48 +0100
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 20:38 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 20:32 +0000
Re: VMS Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-28 14:17 -0700
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-29 05:08 +0000
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-28 13:44 +0100
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-28 13:39 +0100
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 01:03 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-29 05:29 +0000
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 11:42 +0100
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-29 19:16 +0000
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-29 12:10 +0100
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 13:08 +0100
Re: VMS Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-29 09:51 -0700
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-29 18:53 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-29 04:51 -0400
Re: VMS Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-29 13:32 +0000
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-28 09:22 -0700
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-27 12:11 +0100
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-27 22:02 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 04:58 +0000
Re: VMS Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-01 19:13 +0000
Re: VMS Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-08-01 20:38 +0000
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-02 00:01 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-02 02:24 -0400
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-08-02 11:34 +0100
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-02 21:02 -0400
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-03 02:08 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-03 01:00 -0400
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 21:31 -0400
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 05:03 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-28 02:19 -0400
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 21:09 -0400
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-28 10:17 -0700
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 20:46 +0000
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-28 14:34 -0700
Re: VMS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-28 16:34 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 20:48 +0000
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 01:00 +0000
Re: VMS Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-07-29 10:07 +0100
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 23:05 +0000
Re: VMS c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-30 02:43 -0400
Re: VMS Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-08-02 18:11 +0200
Re: VMS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-24 14:42 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-24 18:05 +0000
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-24 11:14 -0700
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-24 23:10 +0000
Re: VMS Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-24 21:16 +0000
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-24 23:21 +0000
Re: VMS John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 14:05 -0700
Re: VMS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-21 21:14 +0000
Re: VMS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:19 +0100
Re: VMS rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-22 02:10 +0000
csiph-web