Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 21:43 +0100 (BST)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <memo.20240901214358.19028K@jgd.cix.co.uk>
References: <vb2hri$1jub9$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 22:43:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6859c4e47e419abc97e3cb248aad72b";
	logging-data="1720714"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yBYBTVHzt0n9nlVhYkSkEX9F5/pW9DaM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:98WmBAMk/VnTOqk8R9VG4MWHNCY=
X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett
Bytes: 1696

In article <vb2hri$1jub9$1@dont-email.me>, david.brown@hesbynett.no
(David Brown) wrote:
> On 01/09/2024 12:21, John Dallman wrote:
> > Then you discover that the C++ string[] operator is not 
> > bounds-checked, as per the C++ standard, but string.at() 
> > is bounds-checked, and curse a bit.

> But surely you would discover that before using the std::string 
> type?  I might do some quick test code using "stuff copied off the 
> internet", but for any serious programming I would want to read the 
> specifications of a type or function before using it.  That's the 
> only way to be sure you are writing correct code.

I didn't write that code, and I don't have the power to demand it be
re-written. My group is somewhat pickier about correctness and security
than the group who created it. 

John