Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sun, 5 May 2019 20:44:35 +0200 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 19-04-021 19-04-023 19-04-037 19-04-039 19-04-042 19-04-044 19-04-047 19-05-004 19-05-006 19-05-016 19-05-020 19-05-024 19-05-025 19-05-028 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="27580"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | errors, debug, comment |
| Posted-Date: | 05 May 2019 15:05:12 EDT |
Am 05.05.2019 um 12:14 schrieb Bart:
> But how do they get there? Take this:
>
> int A[10], *p;
> p = &A[3];
>
> You intend p to refer to the 4-element slice A[3..6], but how does the
> language know that? How can it stop code from writing to p[5]?
Not pointers are bad, but pointer arithmetic is. It should be allowed
only with objects of known bounds.
DoDi
[In this case the bounds look known to me. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.