Re: GCC 4.1 now the default GCC version for etch
Ron Johnson <email@example.com> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Falk Hueffner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:58:23AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:53:24PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
>>> So in summary, if you don't care about portability to 64-bit windows,
>>> assuming sizeof(void*) == sizeof(long) is just fine.
>> Unless you compile with range checking pointers.
> Has Pascal risen from the grave? No, that's range checking arrays.
> Never mind.
> Of course, we could always use COBOL and never have to worry about
> such issues...
In C a pointer is only valid in the range allocated plus one and may
only be dereferenced within the range allocated. Anything else is
implementation defined. gcc is totaly within its rights to abort any
such case, esspecialy if you think about what harm buffer overflows