[19209] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: C99 Features
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nico Williams)
Wed Jun 17 19:16:04 2015
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:15:54 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150617231554.GI6117@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1434569260.17641.1.camel@redhat.com>
Cc: Danilo Almeida <dalmeida@mit.edu>, "'krbdev@mit.edu'" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:27:40PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> FTR, I was not suggesting we should ignore failures. We shouldn't. I
> only meant that on many platforms such handling is not likely to catch
> an actual OOM condition.
A segfault ia very different from "undefined behavior"...
I suppose a C run-time could check that VLA and alloca() allocations
don't blow past hard limits on stack size, but I suspect none does: an
ABI would have to be defined for performing that check, and doing so no
slower than a thread-local access.
It sure would be nice if such an ABI existed, and the run-times used it.
But it couldn't really be required for implementations.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
