Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug
From: ben () ALGROUP CO UK (Ben Laurie)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:51:29 +0100
David Schwartz wrote:
How do you think the compiler would interpret the following: MyString Foo="test"; It would _have_ to call a constructor. There is no other way to make a 'MyString'. So your distinction is a distinction without a difference.
That's my point. MyString requires a call to a constructor. An int doesn't. That's the difference.
No you cannnot know that _in_general_. The code 'int MyString::StringCount=0;' and the code 'MyString Foo="test"' are on an equal level -- both construct global objects and initialize them to sane states. So in general, you can't know which will occur first.
No, we know that 'int MyString::StringCount=0;' is done first, because it needs no run-time initialisation. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/ and Technical Director|Email: ben () algroup co uk | A.L. Digital Ltd, |Apache-SSL author http://www.apache-ssl.org/ London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/ WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/
Current thread:
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug, (continued)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Pavel Kankovsky (Jul 09)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Matt Evans (Jul 09)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Warner Losh (Jul 10)
- inetd can leak file descriptors +FIX Jeff Forys (Jul 14)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Alexander Kjeldaas (Jul 15)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Warner Losh (Jul 10)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Ben Laurie (Jul 11)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug David Schwartz (Jul 11)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Geoffrey KEATING (Jul 14)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Ben Laurie (Jul 11)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug David Schwartz (Jul 11)
- Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug Ben Laurie (Jul 12)