Linux is not reliable enough?

Mészáros Lajos ludwigm at
Wed Jul 28 01:59:42 EST 2004

> >   int a[100], b = 123;
> >   a[b] = 0;
> >
> > I guess I'm taking exception to your use of the phrase "all
> software".
> >
> >
> What I mean is, if &a = 0x10000, then a[b] will always write
> 0 to 0x101ec.
> That may not be smart, may not be what you intended to do,
> but the uP will
> always do the exact same thing.  (Does this mean 'C' is
> unreliable because
> it lets you do things like that?)

Yes, 'C' is unreliable because writing beyond the
"maxindex" lets you overwrite other's data, other's
code and DOES make backdoor for viruses.

On the other hand testing every index every time
for min and max slowes the executing.

So what?


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See

More information about the Linuxppc-embedded mailing list