Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6105
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C |
| Date | 2015-12-30 20:06 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <n61dbf$qma$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <n6188g$6ki$1@dont-email.me> <n618tb$9as$1@dont-email.me> <n619kh$c61$1@dont-email.me> <n61bsv$l1r$1@dont-email.me> <n61cb0$l0n$4@dont-email.me> |
On 30/12/15 22:49, Ramine wrote: > > Hello, > > Sorry , here is the right link, the gcc -ftrapv, read here: You only have to post it once, you know. The cited book is by Robert Seacord, whom I recall very clearly. I had long discussions with him on Usenet and in email, about the time he was writing "The CERT C Coding Standard" (in fact, you will find my name in the acknowledgements for that work, although not in the work you cited). I did not find the experience a particularly fruitful one, however, because - like you - he doesn't really know how to listen. Consequently, the CERT C Coding Standard is flawed in several important respects. I currently have no reason to doubt that his book on "Secure Coding in C and C++" is just as flawed. In the current case, we see the problem right away: int x = /* nondeterministic value */ Obviously it doesn't compile, which isn't a great start. But more importantly, what on earth does he mean by "nondeterministic value"? Does he mean this? int x; x = x + 100 - 1000; If he does mean that, well, overflow is the least of his problems! And if he doesn't, what /does/ he mean? If x has a nondeterministic value, we have no business doing any arithmetic at all with x until it has been properly initialised! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 18:50 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-30 11:28 -0800
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:48 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:51 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:07 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:34 -0800
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:41 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:51 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:06 +0000
Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:06 +0000
csiph-web