[Info-vax] Whither VMS?

[Bob Koehler]

In article <ha6oek$gn9$02$1 at news.t-online.com>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer at gsi.de> writes:
> 
> That's not a problem of null termination,
> it's a problem of writing to an area you do not own.

   It's a problem of the called routine having no way of preventing you
   from writing to an area you do not own.  Other languages do actually
   prevent it.

> This may happen in any language, i.e.
> Assuming a fixed size of your data objects
> because it would never ever been exceeded
> (Y2K comes to mind).
> In C, one would have used sth like
> aBuffer = calloc( strlen(someString)+1, sizeof(*aBuffer) )

   In Fortran, one would pass a string (CHARACTER), and the language 
   definition requires that the called function has access to the
   allocated length of the buffer, although this is implemented
   different ways by different compilers, and the function can prevent 
   the buffer from being overwritten.

> 
> and it would be switched off for production release,
> where most of the buffer oflos would surface.

   But functions in other languages can, and routinely do, block that
   from happening using features that are not compile time selectable,
   but instead are guarranteed by the language standard.
 
> That would be a compiler issue, not a language issue.

   The C compiler is not required to pass the length by any part of the
   C language standard, and I've never seen one that does, with the
   possible exception of one that didn't sell.

> 
> That would be an architecture issue, not a language issue.

   It is a language issue.  The C language standard could require the
   allocated length to be passed, but it doesn't.