From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-20 01:22:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!134.222.94.5!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B80C955.EEF5954C@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
From: Ian Wild <ian@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
Organization: Eurocontrol
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of      
 service attack.
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <made-on-a-macintosh-969204-20460@usenet.l1t.lt>
 <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com>
 <q22nk9.r1p.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B6F312F.DA4E178E@home.com>
 <23lok9.ioi.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B70AB15.35845A98@home.com>
 <qrdsk9.env.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B721FF5.B7D854F6@home.com>
 <HGIe7.17812$1p1.1427858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <3B7BC847.61D7EF55@home.com> <3B7BCEC4.202A3FA@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
 <3B7C0397.3AD029C6@home.com> <3B7C0F90.EC31384B@sensor.com>
 <3B7C3016.9D6085A@home.com> <87vgjnvh9v.fsf@pfaffben.user.msu.edu>
 <3B7C3C2F.57D11F79@spamcop.net> <3B7D5E18.985F2E8F@home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cache-Post-Path: ecw.eurocontrol.be!unknown@193.221.189.77
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:22:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.221.170.178
X-Complaints-To: abuse@Belgium.EU.net
X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 998295735 193.221.170.178 (Mon,
 20 Aug 2001 10:22:15 MET DST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:22:15 MET DST
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12112 comp.lang.c:75540
 comp.lang.c++:84085
Date: 2001-08-20T08:22:15+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:
> 
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Yes, never, ever seen that.  Perhaps the confusion is that some
> > compilers will (and are allowed to) add padding between the
> > "implemenation defined place" that the string literals are stored,
> > but that isn't reflected in sizeof, it's lost space.
> 
> Nope, not confusing it with padding. However, I'll grant that it may
> have been a "broken implementation" ;-)

Hmmm...

Your original claim was that "On 5 different platforms, the
sizeof "ab" could yeild the answers 3,4 or 8, depending upon
the platforms chosen".  Either you've been particularly unlucky
in your choice of compilers or your test program was at fault.
Two implementations broken in exactly the same place?  Well, maybe...