Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.forth    |    Forth programmers eat a lot of Bratwurst    |    117,927 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 116,259 of 117,927    |
|    Tristan Wibberley to Anton Ertl    |
|    Re: push for memory safe languages -- im    |
|    04 Mar 24 23:03:55    |
      From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk              On 01/03/2024 18:02, Anton Ertl wrote:       > mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:       >> What if the program writes a float to a byte location?       >       > That's not a safety problem (as long as the location is big enough for       > the float), so one can design a Safe Forth variant that allows that.              I'm not very familiar with forth yet, does this refer to writing to a       machine addressed location? If so, plenty of computers have alignment       requirements, a DoS can be introduced by the above action.              Also, if you write a byte to a float location, a variety of problems can       be introduced including running trap callbacks that were insufficiently       tested for the new program state, etc, killing the process and running       restart sequences where less volatile state can now be in an unusual       condition and new side-effects induced, and so on.              memory safety means maintaining invariant relations wrt. each memory       location.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca