Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Run-time Checks for C
Message-ID: <187@twwells.uucp>
Date: 19 Nov 88 16:18:53 GMT
References: <10113@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 20

In article <10113@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> raghavan@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Vijay Raghavan) writes:
:
:    I made a casual statement in a local bulletin board to the effect that
: the C language definition doesn't really preclude any implementation from
: doing certain run-time checks (for array bounds, type checking, referring
: contents of uninitialized pointer variables &c), it's just that most
: (okay, all!) implementations don't do any such checking because of efficiency
: reasons. Now I'm not sure that this statement is really true (I mean I'm not
: sure that sufficient information can always be passed to the compiler for it
: to generate code for meaningful run-time checks.)
:
:    Comments?

It is entirely possible to do complete run-time checking; I understand
that there are some C interpreters that do this. It is not cheap,
however.

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill