Hacker News Reader

Comment by frabert | Hacker News Reader

Never heard of a serious buffer overflow caused by _constant_ indices. Does it work with AT(arr, i), or only with AT(arr, 10)?

View on HN

"'Brother,' says he, 'greetings. Didn't I see you in Southern Missouri last summer selling colored sand at half-a-dollar a teaspoonful to put into lamps to keep the oil from exploding?'

"'Oil,' says I, 'never explodes. It's the gas that forms that explodes.' But I shakes hands with him, anyway.

...

"'Listen,' says I. 'I instruct her to keep her lamp clean and well filled. If she does that it can't burst. And with the sand in it she knows it can't, and she don't worry.

— O. Henry, The Man Higher Up

Did you mean to reply somewhere else? This thread is about about bounds checking arrays in the C programming language.

You definitly didn't understood the message.

But it's absolutely true though: if only the C programmers right their code very carefully and in specific patterns, the buffer overflows and invalid dereferences won't happen and therefore, won't explode their programs! By the way, only today I have a silver bullet to sell with "runtime safety violations" written on it, anyone willing to buy it?

If you did understood it, then explain it so I can understood it too.

Somehow doesn't seem worth my time.

So it was worth your time to reply twice, but not to explain anything?

Yes, because I don't expect you to understand anyway and ELI5 would take a bit, much longer than these dumb comments.

Hint, someone else got it.

I'm starting to think you didn't understood the message or you wouldn't be avoiding explaining yourself while trying to insult people.

Joker_vD got it.

How does what they are saying have anything to do with what I replied to ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

That's the definition of an allegory, but how do the two things relate?

Why did you say you "don't have time" then go to great lengths to not explain anything or back up what you're saying in any way?

Yeap, that's the whole point of it

Huh I misinterpreted the error messages in the example, I thought those were compiler output. This is quite cool then.

EDIT: although, it seems like this looses much of its power once you start passing these buffers around to functions that do not use these macros.

> this looses much of its power once you start passing these buffers around to functions that do not use these macros.

Alas it's even worse: once you pass buffers around to functions, you can't use these macros!

0.0.2 update is live, and solves this issue. Check for updated README.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com