Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #10412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:57 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 07:53 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 08:23 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 16:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 10:10 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 05:07 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 14:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-19 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 17:21 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:27 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 18:31 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-21 01:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:03 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 02:33 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 10:08 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid websnarf <websnarf@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:51 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:11 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-19 22:21 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-09-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:09 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 20:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 22:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 22:43 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 19:03 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 14:11 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 21:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 06:17 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-28 07:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 07:26 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:26 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-30 01:27 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-30 08:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:21 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-09-18 23:10 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 03:34 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-18 22:32 -0600
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 18:15 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:02 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 20:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 16:11 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:28 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:07 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 11:28 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 15:45 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 14:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 21:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 14:40 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:44 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 18:44 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 07:04 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:30 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:39 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 14:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 19:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-21 05:25 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 12:16 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 23:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 21:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-24 14:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:43 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:26 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:53 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 02:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 22:24 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:36 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:30 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-22 18:23 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 06:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-19 19:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:02 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 06:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 20:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-28 09:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-18 23:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:45 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 19:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2011-09-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 01:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-17 17:15 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Максим Фомин <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> - 2011-09-18 00:43 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-18 10:34 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-20 09:28 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 10:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5dejt$u7c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10671 |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:20:21 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 21/09/11 18:26, Kenneth Brody a critic :
>> On 9/19/2011 4:50 PM, Ike Naar wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-19, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
>>>> Ian, the context is the proposed solution with a 64 bit magic number.
>>>> You read 8 bytes and test for your magic number. If you crash or the
>>>> magic number is not there then it is a bad pointer you see?
>>>
>>> But if it does not crash and the magic number is there, you still
>>> cannot be sure that the pointer was good.
>>
>> The problem with trying to make idiot-proof software is that the
>> universe keeps creating better idiots.
>>
>> Nothing you can do (that I can think of) can be 100% failsafe in
>> checking that the pointer is "valid".
>>
>>
> Nobody wants to do that. I told you already that this is not a magical
> solution to all problems. It s just a BETTER solution under certain
> circumstances that can give more meaningful error messages than
>
> bus error
> core dumped.
>
> And, (embedded programmers should know) not all CPUs have a MMU that
> will crash... Many will just overwrite some other process memory or
> whatever
Yes. They also have watchdog-timers (and other assorted precautions) and
usually the program is in ((E)EP)ROM and cannot be overwritten. RAM state
is irrelevant once the state is undefined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ Your CHEEKS sit like twin NECTARINES \
\ above a MOUTH that knows no BOUNDS -- /
---------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9dut8oFplU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10671 |
On 09/22/11 07:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 21/09/11 18:26, Kenneth Brody a critic : >> On 9/19/2011 4:50 PM, Ike Naar wrote: >>> On 2011-09-19, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: >>>> Ian, the context is the proposed solution with >>>> a 64 bit magic number. You read 8 bytes and test for your >>>> magic number. If you crash or the magic number is not there >>>> then it is a bad pointer you see? >>> >>> But if it does not crash and the magic number is there, you >>> still cannot be sure that the pointer was good. >> >> The problem with trying to make idiot-proof software is that the >> universe keeps creating better idiots. >> >> Nothing you can do (that I can think of) can be 100% failsafe in >> checking that the pointer is "valid". >> > > Nobody wants to do that. I told you already that this is not > a magical solution to all problems. It s just a BETTER solution > under certain circumstances that can give more meaningful > error messages than > > bus error > core dumped. > > And, (embedded programmers should know) not all CPUs have > a MMU that will crash... Many will just overwrite some > other process memory or whatever Which is one of the many reasons why we develop and test our code in a hosted environment. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e7ac972$0$15668$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #10650 |
"Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody@spamcop.net> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ypydnZc7VuevjefTnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@bestweb.net... > On 9/19/2011 4:50 PM, Ike Naar wrote: >> On 2011-09-19, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: >>> Ian, the context is the proposed solution with >>> a 64 bit magic number. You read 8 bytes and test for your >>> magic number. If you crash or the magic number is not there >>> then it is a bad pointer you see? >> >> But if it does not crash and the magic number is there, you >> still cannot be sure that the pointer was good. > > The problem with trying to make idiot-proof software is that the universe > keeps creating better idiots. > > Nothing you can do (that I can think of) can be 100% failsafe in checking that > the pointer is "valid". nothing is 100% even "mov eax, [ebx]" but 99.999999999999999% yes it is possible > -- > Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9dpp4bF76kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10526 |
On 09/20/11 08:38 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 19/09/11 22:09, Ian Collins a écrit : >> >> Again, your example uses an incorrect, but otherwise good, pointer. >> > > Ian, the context is the proposed solution with > a 64 bit magic number. You read 8 bytes and test for your > magic number. If you crash or the magic number is not there > then it is a bad pointer you see? > > I proposed that a few messages above, maybe you missed it. It was on a different branch. Even that scheme will still miss valid, but wrong (pointing to wrong objects of same type) pointers. That's probably why most code simply checks for null and then proceeds. Further checking tends to take you down a very steep slope of diminishing returns. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j59eks$g5v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10513 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:30:42 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 19/09/11 19:42, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
>>
>> Personally, I prefer debugging a program that crashes at the actual
>> point of failure.
>>
>>
> Well, it depends where the point of failure is.
>
> Suppose your library is expecting a pointer to "a" and is passed a
> pointer to "b", a similar syructure but with slightly different layout.
>
> 1) The program crashes deep inside the library when processing the
> pointer data. You have a stack trace that tells you:
>
> 0x488776AAD()
> 0x446655FF4()
> MyFunction() myfunction.c 476
> main() main.c 876
>
> Now what?
Point the debugger (by JTAG if need be) at the stackframe containing
'MyFunction' and check the arguments used against the parameters required *).
> 2) When you pass a bad pointer the library opens a dialog box:
> "Invalid argument to function Library_input(), argument two"
If the library already invoked undefined behavior (by crashing)
the state of your program is also undefined and opening a dialog
box may well result in another crash, thus hiding the details of
the original crash and preventing debugging most effectively.
I would, personally, object to using any library that does that.
> You see?
Nope.
> A crash isn't always a good thing.
A crash is never a good thing, but it's preferable to continuing
in an undefined state.
*) simple... The _real_ nasties require whipping out logic-analyzer
and squinting at the traffic on the address and data buses and/or
other data-lines, but they don't usually involve prefab libs. If you're
_really_ unlucky, there's only an old-fashioned oscilloscope or even two
leds available. Been there, done that and earned a decent living doing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ ... If I had heart failure right now, I \
\ couldn't be a more fortunate man!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j59gjj$7vd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10555 |
Le 20/09/11 09:16, Kleuskes & Moos a écrit : > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:30:42 +0200, jacob navia wrote: > >> Le 19/09/11 19:42, Kenneth Brody a écrit : >>> >>> Personally, I prefer debugging a program that crashes at the actual >>> point of failure. >>> >>> >> Well, it depends where the point of failure is. >> >> Suppose your library is expecting a pointer to "a" and is passed a >> pointer to "b", a similar syructure but with slightly different layout. >> >> 1) The program crashes deep inside the library when processing the >> pointer data. You have a stack trace that tells you: >> >> 0x488776AAD() >> 0x446655FF4() >> MyFunction() myfunction.c 476 >> main() main.c 876 >> >> Now what? > > Point the debugger (by JTAG if need be) at the stackframe containing > 'MyFunction' and check the arguments used against the parameters required *). > Yes, sure. You see two arguments. Are the pointers bad? The first comes from an argument to this function, where were that created? Up the stack. Get the docs for the call to the library. Ahhh the two arguments look ok... Maybe this is the consequence of a bug I corrected yesterday. Let's come back to the situation before those changes. Pull that version. Ahh Crash also, it wasn't that. Let's look better at those documentation for that dammed library. Ahhhh the arguments are inversed damm it! I found it after 1 lost day. Well, that is developing. >> 2) When you pass a bad pointer the library opens a dialog box: >> "Invalid argument to function Library_input(), argument two" > > If the library already invoked undefined behavior (by crashing) > the state of your program is also undefined and opening a dialog > box may well result in another crash, thus hiding the details of > the original crash and preventing debugging most effectively. > No. There isn't (precisely) any crash. The library cleanly reports a failure in your program. > I would, personally, object to using any library that does that. > >> You see? > > Nope. > Of course, you like software that crashes like that. OK. >> A crash isn't always a good thing. > > A crash is never a good thing, but it's preferable to continuing > in an undefined state. > Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the importance of the library in the software. For instance, if you are doing a GPS appplication, a crash in the graphics module that scrolls the map is not that important, the GPS can continue to work... The main application is a module that warns the driver if he/she goes beyond the speed limit for the road. The map is just "to be nice".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j59qfk$ho4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10560 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:50:12 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 20/09/11 09:16, Kleuskes & Moos a écrit :
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:30:42 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> Le 19/09/11 19:42, Kenneth Brody a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I prefer debugging a program that crashes at the actual
>>>> point of failure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, it depends where the point of failure is.
>>>
>>> Suppose your library is expecting a pointer to "a" and is passed a
>>> pointer to "b", a similar syructure but with slightly different
>>> layout.
>>>
>>> 1) The program crashes deep inside the library when processing the
>>> pointer data. You have a stack trace that tells you:
>>>
>>> 0x488776AAD()
>>> 0x446655FF4()
>>> MyFunction() myfunction.c 476
>>> main() main.c 876
>>>
>>> Now what?
>>
>> Point the debugger (by JTAG if need be) at the stackframe containing
>> 'MyFunction' and check the arguments used against the parameters
>> required *).
>>
>>
> Yes, sure. You see two arguments. Are the pointers bad? The first comes
> from an argument to this function, where were that created?
How should I know? It's your example and I'm no psychic.
> Up the stack.
>
> Get the docs for the call to the library. Ahhh the two arguments look
> ok... Maybe this is the consequence of a bug I corrected yesterday.
In that case you haven't fixed it.
> Let's come back to the situation before those changes.
>
> Pull that version. Ahh Crash also, it wasn't that. Let's look better at
> those documentation for that dammed library.
>
> Ahhhh the arguments are inversed damm it!
>
> I found it after 1 lost day. Well, that is developing.
True, and if that took you a full day, don't apply for a job in the
firm i work for.
>>> 2) When you pass a bad pointer the library opens a dialog box:
>>> "Invalid argument to function Library_input(), argument two"
>>
>> If the library already invoked undefined behavior (by crashing) the
>> state of your program is also undefined and opening a dialog box may
>> well result in another crash, thus hiding the details of the original
>> crash and preventing debugging most effectively.
>>
>>
> No. There isn't (precisely) any crash. The library cleanly reports a
> failure in your program.
The premisse of your example was "The program crashes deep inside the library when processing the
pointer data". You're shifting goalposts, unless you have secretly invented some mathemagical way
of detecting bad pointers. I'm sure everybody would be greatly interested.
> > I would, personally, object to using any library that does that.
> >
> >> You see?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >
>
> Of course, you like software that crashes like that. OK.
Yes, for the reasons already mentioned upthread several times.
> >> A crash isn't always a good thing.
> >
> > A crash is never a good thing, but it's preferable to continuing in
> > an undefined state.
> >
> >
> Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the importance of the library in the
> software.
Always. The one thing worse than a crash is an undefined state in which
your software might do *anything*. In one of the applications i worked at,
it could kill an unsuspecting person, while a crash would cause a
watchdog-timer to trigger, restarting the app and signaling the problem.
> For instance, if you are doing a GPS appplication, a crash in the
> graphics module that scrolls the map is not that important, the GPS can
> continue to work... The main application is a module that warns the
> driver if he/she goes beyond the speed limit for the road. The map is
> just "to be nice".
So? Place the GPS-code in one process and the map in another, use a
watchdog-timer to restart. Software separated logically, problem solved.
Now consider your approach in a pace-maker going haywire due to your continuing
in an undefined state and placing random pulses on the atriums and ventricles.
I'm very sure neither the patient, nor the MD, your boss or even you will be
very happy with the result*).
So, no. You approach is anything but desirable.
*) in fact, there's a last ditch electronic defense prohibiting pulses being sent
too fast, but that's no absolute guarantee. Ill timed pulses may still provoke a
cardiac arrest or other serious problems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
/ HELLO KITTY gang terrorizes town, \
\ family STICKERED to death! /
-----------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e36e7208-627a-4b88-bc0a-92207b261e57@z5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10562 |
On Sep 20, 1:38 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote: > > Always. The one thing worse than a crash is an undefined state in which > your software might do *anything*. In one of the applications i worked at, > it could kill an unsuspecting person, while a crash would cause a > watchdog-timer to trigger, restarting the app and signaling the problem. > That's not always true. There's no point deliberately crashing a video game, for instance. The hard problem is whether or not to allow an emergency save. If you don't allow it, the user will lose all the work he did before the last save. If you do allow it, you might save corrupted data which could cause far more serious problems further down the line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j59vfi$k3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10563 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:29:28 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:38 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>>
>> Always. The one thing worse than a crash is an undefined state in which
>> your software might do *anything*. In one of the applications i worked
>> at, it could kill an unsuspecting person, while a crash would cause a
>> watchdog-timer to trigger, restarting the app and signaling the
>> problem.
>>
> That's not always true. There's no point deliberately crashing a video
> game, for instance.
Better than continuing in an undefined state and opening your platform up
for possible exploits (e.g. buffer overrun). Besides, "deliberately crashing"
differs from "crashing on a bad pointer", which was the subject at hand.
Apart from that, there are few persons who would consider a video-game to be
critical for anything. Worst that can happen is a frustrated user demolishing
an innocent keyboard and making an ass of himself on YouTube.
> The hard problem is whether or not to allow an emergency save. If you
> don't allow it, the user will lose all the work he did before the last
> save. If you do allow it, you might save corrupted data which could
> cause far more serious problems further down the line.
The latter is sufficient reason _not_ to allow that, unless you can guarantee
the data to be saved isn't corrupted. The proper way to do things _like_ that
is to generate a dump _in_a_separate_file_, which might later be used to
restore at least some of the previous state.
But things like that only come into play if your app isn't really critical to
anyone and you have a damned good reason for doing so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ My nose feels like a bad Ronald Reagan \
\ movie ... /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e88e6942-14d8-491d-b072-353e31ec7d4a@z7g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10564 |
On Sep 20, 3:04 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:29:28 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > The hard problem is whether or not to allow an emergency save. If you > > don't allow it, the user will lose all the work he did before the last > > save. If you do allow it, you might save corrupted data which could > > cause far more serious problems further down the line. > > The latter is sufficient reason _not_ to allow that, unless you can guarantee > the data to be saved isn't corrupted. The proper way to do things _like_ that > is to generate a dump _in_a_separate_file_, which might later be used to > restore at least some of the previous state. > > But things like that only come into play if your app isn't really critical to > anyone and you have a damned good reason for doing so. > Often you don't know how the app will be used. For instance a spreadsheet might be used for an undergraduate research project, or it might hold details of cancer patients in a drugs trial. The requirements are the same. Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate. That's a major irritation. He won't use that package again and you've lost a customer. If you offer to save, of course you'll warn "this data may be corrupted". One would hope that the cancer trial people have procedures. But a harassed clerk has just spent half an hour entering new drug data. She chooses the save option, looks at the data, it seems OK. 99% of the time, she'll be right to accept it. Will the cancer trial people really catch that one? Is it your responsibility, as spreadsheet programmer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5ag7b$7ug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10566 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:04 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:29:28 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> > The hard problem is whether or not to allow an emergency save. If you
>> > don't allow it, the user will lose all the work he did before the
>> > last save. If you do allow it, you might save corrupted data which
>> > could cause far more serious problems further down the line.
>>
>> The latter is sufficient reason _not_ to allow that, unless you can
>> guarantee the data to be saved isn't corrupted. The proper way to do
>> things _like_ that is to generate a dump _in_a_separate_file_, which
>> might later be used to restore at least some of the previous state.
>>
>> But things like that only come into play if your app isn't really
>> critical to anyone and you have a damned good reason for doing so.
>>
> Often you don't know how the app will be used.
In that case, you have little choice. Terminate ignobly and blame the
user of your lib.
> For instance a
> spreadsheet might be used for an undergraduate research project, or it
> might hold details of cancer patients in a drugs trial. The requirements
> are the same.
For a spreadsheet developer, that makes no difference.
> Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes out,
> it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate.
The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save"
option for that purpose.
> That's a major
> irritation. He won't use that package again and you've lost a customer.
If that were true, Microsoft would be bankrupt.
> If you offer to save, of course you'll warn "this data may be
> corrupted". One would hope that the cancer trial people have procedures.
> But a harassed clerk has just spent half an hour entering new drug data.
> She chooses the save option, looks at the data, it seems OK. 99% of the
> time, she'll be right to accept it. Will the cancer trial people really
> catch that one? Is it your responsibility, as spreadsheet programmer?
You just provided an excellent reason to let the damned thing just crash
instead of trying all kinds of clever little voodoo-tricks to catch a bad
pointer. Ample use of asserts in a design-by-contract setup and pay cuts
all around if one is triggered in the field? I'm all for it, but this is
getting ridiculous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ I don't believe there really IS a GAS \
| SHORTAGE.. I think it's all just a BIG |
| HOAX on the part of the plastic sign |
\ salesmen -- to sell more numbers!! /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ehz82wwl.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10581 |
Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes out, > > it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate. > > The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save" > option for that purpose. What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save as', the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that "contained" the non-existent filename! Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5he9f$mmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10723 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes
>> > out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate.
>>
>> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save"
>> option for that purpose.
>
> What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save as',
> the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that "contained" the
> non-existent filename!
Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing, someone
hasn't been doing their job.
Besides, populating menus is something that happens in program initialization
(typically), so the user in question did not yet have a chance to write
anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________
< Are you still an ALCOHOLIC? >
-----------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87fwjn1u2y.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10737 |
Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes > >> > out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate. > >> > >> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save" > >> option for that purpose. > > > > What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save as', > > the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that "contained" the > > non-existent filename! > > Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing, someone > hasn't been doing their job. On the planet where I live, either testers don't do their job, or those who write test specs are incompetent. I'm on good terms with a lot of our testers, I suspect it's the latter where I work. However, fundamental functions not being tested is *incredibly* common. Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5htnk$hlb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10747 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:33:41 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>> > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> >> > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes
>> >> > out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate.
>> >>
>> >> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save"
>> >> option for that purpose.
>> >
>> > What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save
>> > as', the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that
>> > "contained" the non-existent filename!
>>
>> Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing,
>> someone hasn't been doing their job.
>
> On the planet where I live, either testers don't do their job, or those
> who write test specs are incompetent. I'm on good terms with a lot of
> our testers, I suspect it's the latter where I work. However,
> fundamental functions not being tested is *incredibly* common.
You have a pretty fundamental problem, it seems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
/ An Italian is COMBING his hair in \
\ suburban DES MOINES! /
-----------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87wrczz5rh.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10756 |
Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:33:41 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote: > >> > >> > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: > >> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> >> > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes > >> >> > out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate. > >> >> > >> >> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save" > >> >> option for that purpose. > >> > > >> > What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save > >> > as', the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that > >> > "contained" the non-existent filename! > >> > >> Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing, > >> someone hasn't been doing their job. > > > > On the planet where I live, either testers don't do their job, or those > > who write test specs are incompetent. I'm on good terms with a lot of > > our testers, I suspect it's the latter where I work. However, > > fundamental functions not being tested is *incredibly* common. > > You have a pretty fundamental problem, it seems. Nope, I just work for Nokia. There's no debate that Nokia has monumental problems. Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5ieef$91p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10761 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:34:58 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:33:41 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>> > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>> >> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> >> >> > Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it
>> >> >> > crashes out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the
>> >> >> > undergraduate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a
>> >> >> "save" option for that purpose.
>> >> >
>> >> > What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save
>> >> > as', the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that
>> >> > "contained" the non-existent filename!
>> >>
>> >> Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing,
>> >> someone hasn't been doing their job.
>> >
>> > On the planet where I live, either testers don't do their job, or
>> > those who write test specs are incompetent. I'm on good terms with a
>> > lot of our testers, I suspect it's the latter where I work. However,
>> > fundamental functions not being tested is *incredibly* common.
>>
>> You have a pretty fundamental problem, it seems.
>
> Nope, I just work for Nokia. There's no debate that Nokia has monumental
> problems.
I would call that a pretty fundamental problem... I guess i'm just lucky
sticking to microcontrollers and DSP's and all kinds of funky platforms
like VxWorks.
My sincere condoleances. Good luck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________
< ... I have read the INSTRUCTIONS ... >
--------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5ho7m$il7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10737 |
On 09/23/2011 03:59 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote: > >> Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes: >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes >>>> out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate. >>> >>> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save" >>> option for that purpose. >> >> What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save as', >> the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that "contained" the >> non-existent filename! > > Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing, someone > hasn't been doing their job. You're assuming that the circumstances which cause this behavior are easily reproduced. If it's hard to reproduce those circumstances, it's correspondingly easy for even competent testers to fail to trigger it. Perfectly competent testers are, like perfectly competent programmers, easy to postulate, but very hard to hire. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5htho$hlb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10752 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:49:29 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 03:59 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:35:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>>> Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> writes:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:25:21 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> Now lets say the program detects an invalid pointer. If it crashes
>>>>> out, it destroys maybe six hours work by the undergraduate.
>>>>
>>>> The graduate should have saved his work. Spreadsheets sport a "save"
>>>> option for that purpose.
>>>
>>> What if whilst trying to populate the pull-down sub-menu for 'save
>>> as', the program dereferenced an uninitialised pointer that
>>> "contained" the non-existent filename!
>>
>> Kick the testers in the balls. If that didn't show up in testing,
>> someone hasn't been doing their job.
>
> You're assuming that the circumstances which cause this behavior are
> easily reproduced.
If the hypothetical doesn't specify that, there's no reason for me to
assume it.
> If it's hard to reproduce those circumstances, it's
> correspondingly easy for even competent testers to fail to trigger it.
If you're able to introduce hard-to-reproduce errors while setting up
menus, for which quite commonly used methods and API's exist, you're doing
_something_ wrong. You should probably kick yourself in the head instead.
> Perfectly competent testers are, like perfectly competent programmers,
> easy to postulate, but very hard to hire.
Yes. And hypothetical examples of things going wring are quite easy to come
up with and you can always bend them such that every objection can be easily
swept aside by adding another hypothetical restriction afterwards.
It's a _very_ cheap way of discussing things and generally, they do not add
much to the discussion. I see no reason to adjust my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________
< Am I in GRADUATE SCHOOL yet? >
------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj820dk.msp.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
| In reply to | #10755 |
On 2011-09-23, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:49:29 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: >> You're assuming that the circumstances which cause this behavior are >> easily reproduced. > If the hypothetical doesn't specify that, there's no reason for me to > assume it. Well, that's the thing. Many of the bugs I see are *hard* to reproduce. I once had a bug which could be reproduced only if: * You had a set of prebuilt compilation tools from two weeks ago. * You had a source tree containing a recent update to one of those tools. * You had a prebuilt compilation tool other than that tool which did *not* need to be rebuilt. * That compilation tool had an RPATH setting that used $ORIGIN. * That tool's name was under four characters. Not the sort of thing one usually has in the list of sanity tests. -s -- Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web