Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bentley!kwh
From: kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.lang.c++,net.arch
Subject: Re: oops, corrupted memory again!
Message-ID: <780@bentley.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Apr-86 16:08:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: bentley.780
Posted: Wed Apr 30 16:08:14 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 23:53:34 EDT
References: <117@prairie.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.lang.c:8784 net.lang.c++:178 net.arch:3182

In article <117@prairie.UUCP> prairie!dan (Dan Frank) writes:
[comments on overflow-checking architecture]
>   You're probably better off with a language that compiles checks into
>the code, and an option to turn [them] off...

As I mentioned, you can do it this way in C++, but when you want to use
pointers you have to copy three words instead of one.  (Or you can use
a language like pascal, which "solves" the problem by disallowing pointer
arithmetic.)  What I was thinking of, though, was a computer with strict
architecture that could be used for development and testing; when the
program is shipped to the Real World it would presumably run on "normal"
architecture.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint