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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-02 03:10:31 PST
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <tmfvrpmb575l80@corp.supernews.com>
 <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com>
 <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com>
 <L5Y97.14163$ar1.47661@www.newsranger.com>
 <tmgrs9anc69q95@corp.supernews.com>
 <dale-8EE262.08123502082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <Xz%97.2632$B37.106689@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
 <dale-FCF3F9.09002402082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <3b690549.1112022840@news.worldonline.nl>
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
 service attack.
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:09:17 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
NNTP-Posting-Host: sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3b692412$1@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 2 Aug 2001 10:57:38 GMT, sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11062 comp.lang.c:71591
 comp.lang.c++:79304 comp.lang.functional:7171
Date: 2001-08-02T11:09:17+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

FYI

1) you can always turn these checks "off" for speed
2) there are constructs that will allow the compiler
   to not insert them in the first place (e.g. using
   <type_name>'Range when looping through an array
   indexed by <type_name>

>From what I remember of a Tucker Taft message a while
back there are considerations of making even more
checks compiler-time as opposed to run-time in Ada0Y
(e.g. some of the elaboration checks).

Richard Bos <info@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:3b690549.1112022840@news.worldonline.nl...
> Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >    Would you be happy if the C language went back to not
> >    enforcing/type checking parameters to functions?
>
> No. Because checking parameter passing can be done, and takes time only,
> at compile-time. Checking array bounds has an impact on the performance
> of the program itself.
> Oh, btw, there _are_ bounds-checking compilers for C. They get used
> where the extra safety is deemed important enough to justify the loss of
> speed.
>
> Richard