You speak Brooklyn? I only understand Manhattan, Was: Denial of denial of service

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 01:15:45PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: > ObHATE: I hate the fact that Windows refuses to use class drivers for > any dratted thing at all. > > It can't drive any RTL-8139 NIC without a driver specifically from that > manufacturer. > > It can't talk to a USB Serial devic

Re: Denial of denial of service

"A. Pagaltzis" writes: > * Aaron J. Grier [2007-02-06 20:40]: >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:54:16PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >> > Pascal strings however *are* in fact a great idea for a >> > tiringly long list for reasons -- better than C strings in >> > every conceivable way bar one or two.

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Aaron J. Grier [2007-02-06 20:40]: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:54:16PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > Pascal strings however *are* in fact a great idea for a > > tiringly long list for reasons -- better than C strings in > > every conceivable way bar one or two. > > they're a great idea if the

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:48:13PM -0800, Timothy Knox wrote: > Ah, what joy that would be, but alas and alack, my career has > consisted mostly of maintaining code not written by me. In fact, my > current job is not only code not written by me, but often so > abyssmally awful, with only the excuse

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:54:16PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > Pascal strings however *are* in fact a great idea for a tiringly long > list for reasons -- better than C strings in every conceivable way bar > one or two. they're a great idea if they are handled transparently, as they (almost) are

Re: Denial of denial of service

* blah blah [2007-02-01 01:55]: > I'm hating the fact that in BSTR's, the pointer points to the > first character, while the four bytes indicating length exist > *before* the pointer, _as well as_ the whole string being > NULL-terminated. > > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms221069.aspx

Re: Denial of denial of service

I'm not really hating length being part of the structure of the string. I'm hating the fact that in BSTR's, the pointer points to the first character, while the four bytes indicating length exist *before* the pointer, _as well as_ the whole string being NULL-terminated. http://msdn2.microsoft.com

Re: Denial of denial of service

* blah blah [2007-01-31 09:40]: > Don't forget BSTR's, the best of them all. Typedef'd as a WCHAR > *, so you'd think they are the same, yet the four bytes before > the first character contains the length of the string. Greatest > idea ever. > > Hate. I am not disputing the hatefulness of false

Re: Denial of denial of service

Don't forget BSTR's, the best of them all. Typedef'd as a WCHAR *, so you'd think they are the same, yet the four bytes before the first character contains the length of the string. Greatest idea ever. Hate. On 1/31/07, Yossi Kreinin wrote: Peter da Silva wrote: >>On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter d

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter da Silva wrote: So you create objects representing external resources like files, database tables, locks, and never expose an uncommitted transaction in any other way? Of course! Theoretically. In practice there is no automatic way to make s

Re: Denial of denial of service

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter da Silva wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Phil!Gregory wrote: > > > try / finally. > > Unless there's some magic involved, you still have to keep track of where > > you > > are in the try block so you can unwind things properly. > The C++ answer is to use obje

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 30 Jan 2007, at 04:01, Peter da Silva wrote: try / finally. Unless there's some magic involved, you still have to keep track of where you are in the try block so you can unwind things properly. I think this may be the nub of the debate. Ideally the try block shouldn't need much in the w

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter da Silva wrote: > On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Phil!Gregory wrote: > > > try / finally. > > Unless there's some magic involved, you still have to keep track of where you > are in the try block so you can unwind things properly. The C++ answer is to use objects for resour

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-30 04:55]: > (no, that's not a joke, but I'll let you google for it) http://www.sasktelwebsite.net/jbayko/cpu.html Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Phil!Gregory wrote: * Peter da Silva [2007-01-29 11:45 -0600]: in practice (unless you're programming in a pure functional mode with no I/O) you've generally got some non-volatile state you have to clean up or back out of before letting the exception pass on up the

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:02 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:54:21PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: VMS. Or rather, VMS on the VAX architecture Ahh, the pinnacle of CISC. No, that would be the iApx432 or Japan's TRON architecture. (no, that's not a joke, but I'll let you goo

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-29 11:45 -0600]: > in practice (unless you're programming in a pure functional mode with no > I/O) you've generally got some non-volatile state you have to clean up > or back out of before letting the exception pass on up the chain. try / finally. Which is a bit of a pa

Re: Denial of denial of service

It was thus said that the Great David Cantrell once stated: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:54:21PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > > > VMS. Or rather, VMS on the VAX architecture > > Ahh, the pinnacle of CISC. I have learnt to never be surprised at Weird > Shit in the VAX instruction set. I expect

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:54:21PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > VMS. Or rather, VMS on the VAX architecture Ahh, the pinnacle of CISC. I have learnt to never be surprised at Weird Shit in the VAX instruction set. I expect to find a single-instruction printf() in there at some point. -- Davi

Re: Denial of denial of service

It was thus said that the Great Tony Finch once stated: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Sean Conner wrote: > > It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > > > > > Can you name a platform where no extra instructions in the normal flow > > > path are generated when exceptions are enabled? >

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > > > Can you name a platform where no extra instructions in the normal flow > > path are generated when exceptions are enabled? > > VMS on the VAX architecture, and there, it's only one instructi

Re: Denial of denial of service

It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > Let's make it simple: did you actually see it /done/? I tried it with gcc > 3.3.1 on x86 and exceptions do translate to overhead (I don't know x86 > assembly either, but I can see when 2 additional instructions are emitted). > Green

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:35:46PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Peter da Silva [2007-01-29 18:05]: > > x86 isn't RISC, it's not really CISC either. It's more like a > > snapshot of 1976 state-of-the-art in micros with 50,000 volts > > pumped through it. > That's a euphemism. x86 is... hell, it'

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: On 29 Jan 2007, at 17:26, Peter da Silva wrote: A GUI is an asynchronous environment, you have to have a mechanism to deal with it. This is a good one... in that context. Yes, sure - but their use is in no way limited to async environments.

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-29 18:05]: > x86 isn't RISC, it's not really CISC either. It's more like a > snapshot of 1976 state-of-the-art in micros with 50,000 volts > pumped through it. That's a euphemism. x86 is... hell, it's not even wrong. In its perversion it quite simply defies description.

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 17:26, Peter da Silva wrote: A GUI is an asynchronous environment, you have to have a mechanism to deal with it. This is a good one... in that context. Yes, sure - but their use is in no way limited to async environments. So how are you proposing to propagate recoverable er

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/signalsandslots.html Ah, rendezvous-style messages. A GUI is an asynchronous environment, you have to have a mechanism to deal with it. This is a good one... in that context. Exceptions should be reserved for er

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: Funny, I seemed to find all 8 local registers usable. Not if you're a C compiler. And all 8 input registers unless you needed the values. Likewise all 8 output registers were usable unless you call a function. So I make that 16-24 depending

Re: Denial of denial of service

Jonathan Stowe wrote: From the first page of results I get it seems that Perl programmers have a higher hatred quotient than most. No - we are just less repressed than most people and express our hatred better :-)

Re: Nostalgia overdose (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On 1/29/07, Dominic Mitchell wrote: Two hates for the price of... well, probably several thousand ordinary pieces of hate. Pieces of hate, pieces of hate! *squawk* -- Adam Auden - UNIX Metal Geek whois bimble.net

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 15:21, Peter da Silva wrote: On Jan 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: I guess you don't like signals / slots or callbacks in general either then? They're all useful tools. They should all be used with extreme care. Concurrency and asynchrony have to be dealt wit

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:59 AM, David Cantrell wrote: interpreter in a lot of places. But anyway, in those cases, catching SIGSEGV and spitting out your own diagnostics *and then halting, immediately* is a Very Good Idea. You misspelled "and then calling {kill(getpid(),SIGSEGV);} immediately".

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Earle Martin wrote: The worst thing [about ARM] was its propensity for turning previously entertainingly bitter and spiteful mailing lists into sticky love-ins for drooling, nostalgic old farts unable to contain their bubbling enthusiasm for obsolete technology. Spe

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 08:57 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: > > I've not had the joy (or maybe hate, who knows?) of programming PDP-11. > > But on the SPARC side, it's a very nice instruction set to program. > > Register windows. > > In 1970, 8 re

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: I guess you don't like signals / slots or callbacks in general either then? They're all useful tools. They should all be used with extreme care. Concurrency and asynchrony have to be dealt with somehow, and the tools that have developed to d

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Earle Martin [2007-01-29 15:30]: > On 29/01/07, Andy Armstrong wrote: > >The best thing about ARM > > The worst thing was its propensity for turning previously > entertainingly bitter and spiteful mailing lists into sticky > love-ins for drooling, nostalgic old farts unable to contain > their

Re: Nostalgia overdose (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

Dominic Mitchell wrote: Hey, I did hear that the new version of Notes will be based on the Eclipse RCP(Rich Client Platform). In the context of Eclipse, I assume "rich client platform" means a computer with 1K terobytes of memory - a platform only a rich client can afford.

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: I've not had the joy (or maybe hate, who knows?) of programming PDP-11. But on the SPARC side, it's a very nice instruction set to program. Register windows. In 1970, 8 registers (6 usable) was actually above average for a minicomputer. In

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:04:14AM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > Exceptions and error codes aside, people who trap SIGSEGV should be shot. Unless what they're writing is a debugging aid, and they're not using C. If you're using C then obviously you should just dump core, as that will contain all

Re: Nostalgia overdose (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:32:03PM +, Andy Armstrong wrote: > I'm off to think about Lotus Notes for a bit now. That should dampen > the ardour of my nostalgia. Mmm yes, envelope-from. One doesn't even have to use it to have cause to hate it. Nicholas Clark

Re: Nostalgia overdose (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 02:32:03PM +, Andy Armstrong wrote: > I'm off to think about Lotus Notes for a bit now. That should dampen > the ardour of my nostalgia. Hey, I did hear that the new version of Notes will be based on the Eclipse RCP(Rich Client Platform). Two hates for the price of..

Nostalgia overdose (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On 29 Jan 2007, at 14:25, Earle Martin wrote: The worst thing was its propensity for turning previously entertainingly bitter and spiteful mailing lists into sticky love-ins for drooling, nostalgic old farts unable to contain their bubbling enthusiasm for obsolete technology. I /was/ getting a

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 14:22, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I probably agree that ARM is the best assembly target among the RISC machines because of the design of it's ISA. I only claimed that it's a worse C target than other RISC machines. And of course I can't really prove that either - that's just my

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29/01/07, Andy Armstrong wrote: The best thing about ARM The worst thing was its propensity for turning previously entertainingly bitter and spiteful mailing lists into sticky love-ins for drooling, nostalgic old farts unable to contain their bubbling enthusiasm for obsolete technology.

Re: Denial of denial of service

Andy Armstrong wrote: I seem to remember that the Norcroft ARM C compiler did quite an impressive job of register colouring and generally working out which variables were worth keeping in registers. Certainly better than GCC at the time (about 10 years ago). 2 years ago, both the ARM and

Re: Denial of denial of service

Andy Armstrong wrote: :I didn't say it was flawless - just a really beautiful instruction :set :) : :There were certainly bugs - like the fact that you couldn't reliably :restart a faulted LDM (load multiple) instruction that included the :base register in the list of registers to be loaded

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 12:30, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Valuable maybe to the original designer of the code; hellish for anyone coming in later and having to figure out what is going on. I couldn't agree less :) The advantage of exceptions cuts both ways. The designer of the called code gets a

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 12:15, Peter da Silva wrote: That decoupling is incredibly valuable - the fact that you can design code that goes *somewhere* when it has a problem without having to work out where it actually goes until later. That encapsulates everything that's hateful about try/catch.

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 12:10, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I can try to move this from hates-hardware to hates-software by pointing out that compilers have hard time dealing with ARM, which has only 16 registers (it prefers to spend the encoding on condition bits and shifter operands). For random C code

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: Why are you using C++ on hardware where you're coding that close to the performance edge anyway? I keep asking myself this very question, but for reasons other than run-time performance (the compile time really bugs me though). If you dyke out exceptions, C++ is as f

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 06:21 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > > Of course any RISC architecture, even an "Advanced" RISC Machine, is > > way easier to deal with than any CISC one. > > If you'll stipulate that i860, Sparc, and of course IA64 are not RISC > and the PDP-11 was not CISC I'll accept tha

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 13:34 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > That's because error handling, while indisputably required, is > hateful. I haven't seen an approach for doing it that doesn't > degenerate into an unmaintainable mess if you even so much as > think about pushing it. Any form of in-band handl

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-29 13:20]: > That encapsulates everything that's hateful about try/catch. That's because error handling, while indisputably required, is hateful. I haven't seen an approach for doing it that doesn't degenerate into an unmaintainable mess if you even so much as think abou

Re: Denial of denial of service

Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 29 Jan 2007, at 02:01, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >> try/catch *is* different from structured flow constructs like while/if >> etc. but similar to wild spaghetti gotos in that you can't see locally >> *or* in fact even statically where the control goes to in case the >> l

Re: Denial of denial of service

Joshua Rodman wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:13:35AM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: Of cousrse, I dont' believe this amount of overhead matters to most people at all anymore. But I know in some circumstances it is completely unacceptable. Sure, I use exceptions in desktop applications because

Re: Denial of denial of service

Of course any RISC architecture, even an "Advanced" RISC Machine, is way easier to deal with than any CISC one. If you'll stipulate that i860, Sparc, and of course IA64 are not RISC and the PDP-11 was not CISC I'll accept that. I haven't done much more than glance at ARM and Thumb and the res

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 29, 2007, at 5:15 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: That encapsulates everything that's wonderful about try / catch :) That decoupling is incredibly valuable - the fact that you can design code that goes *somewhere* when it has a problem without having to work out where it actually goes until

Re: Denial of denial of service

Nicholas Clark wrote: Now you're talking :) I was lying awake last night formulating a thesis that ARM26 is the absolute pinnacle of instruction set design. You're forgetting the 2**24 variants of the NOOP instruction. Although whether this is software is doubtful, and therefore the on-topi

Re: Denial of denial of service

Let's make it simple: did you actually see it /done/? I tried it with gcc 3.3.1 on x86 and exceptions do translate to overhead (I don't know x86 assembly either, but I can see when 2 additional instructions are emitted). Green Hills on ARM is worse, trust me. Let's say I don't care for the mons

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 11:14, Nicholas Clark wrote: You're forgetting the 2**24 variants of the NOOP instruction. Beautiful symmetry :) Although whether this is software is doubtful, and therefore the on- topicness here is doubtful too. Oh, and I'm told that the fact that accessing the process

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 02:01, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: try/catch *is* different from structured flow constructs like while/if etc. but similar to wild spaghetti gotos in that you can't see locally *or* in fact even statically where the control goes to in case the local catches fail. That encapsu

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:06:15AM +, Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 29 Jan 2007, at 01:17, Martin Ebourne wrote: > >Find me an example in ARM > > Now you're talking :) > > I was lying awake last night formulating a thesis that ARM26 is the > absolute pinnacle of instruction set design. You're

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 29 Jan 2007, at 01:17, Martin Ebourne wrote: Find me an example in ARM Now you're talking :) I was lying awake last night formulating a thesis that ARM26 is the absolute pinnacle of instruction set design. -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 22:55 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > Bringing it back on topic... > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22+hate+%22&btnG=Search > >>From the first page of results I get it seems that Perl programmers have a higher hatred quotient than most. /J\

Re: Denial of denial of service

Martin Ebourne wrote: On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 13:44 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: Now lets see, this shouldn't be too hard. The key point to remember here is that a try block covers a fixed range of code which always resides within a given range of machine addresses for any given compilation (ignori

Re: Denial of denial of service

Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Martin Ebourne wrote: Oh come on, if you carry on like that then while, if, switch, or indeed any program flow construct is a goto. Well, at the machine level they are of course, but thinking of them like that at the language level will do you no favours. *meh* Don

Re: Denial of denial of service

Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 19:39 -0500, Sean Conner wrote: >> I don't like throw/catch because it's a form of GOTO, only the target of >> the GOTO isn't implicitely specified (it's more of a COMEFROM than a GOTO, >> and even then, where you are implicitely coming from isn't sta

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 07:39:33PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > Exceptions and error codes aside, people who trap SIGSEGV should be shot. > > Oh, come on now ... how else do you expect us to reattempt the operation > using a different

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 19:39 -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > I don't like throw/catch because it's a form of GOTO, only the target of > the GOTO isn't implicitely specified (it's more of a COMEFROM than a GOTO, > and even then, where you are implicitely coming from isn't stated). Oh come on, if you

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 14:15 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > gcc -S try.cpp -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer > > cat try.s > # tons of labels and such deleted > _Z1gv: > pushl %esi > pushl %ebx > subl$32, %esp > leal12(%esp), %esi > pushl %esi >

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 13:44 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > How can a C++ function, no matter if it has try/catch statements or not, be > exception safe without saving a pointer to the bulk of code (destructor > invokations) to call upon stack unwinding? How can you save things at 0 > cycles? Sur

Re: Denial of denial of service

It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > The problem is that a lot of calling code *doesn't* bother to check the > status. People don't like to do that, especially when they can't abort > right there and must propagate status up the call chain, so they deny the > existence

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I let the traceback (in managed environments) and core dumps (in unmanaged environments) go through to the end user, and the whole universe may professionally fuck itself. You're a bloody Paladin, mate. If everyone was so scrupulous, this who

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 1/28/07, Martin Ebourne wrote: I'd like to point out here and now that getting a null value result from a SQL query is NOT FUCKING EXCEPTIONAL. DON'T THROW AN EXCEPTION, WANKERS! If only I could get an exception! I once dealt with a vendor whose modelling software took an "innovative" app

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: If I run a command and I get "/some/obscure/file: No such file of directory" I've got a place to start winkling at the problem. If I run a command and I get "peter: Not a typewriter" I've got jack. One of my collegues started to work on a merge of pstack and strace, g

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-28 16:00]: > On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: > >PS. http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=FIXME > > *boggle* > > There's a Devel::FIXME module? Wow, thanks for pointing that out: * > When Dev

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: PS. http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=FIXME%3A&btnG=Search *boggle* There's a Devel::FIXME module?

Re: Denial of denial of service

I don't have a positive experience to cite when it comes to *recovering* from errors in complex cases. But if you need to *detect* errors, a call stack is better than "Is a directory" printed by hell knows what buried hell knows where. And you can do things like run a lot of test modules and sa

Re: Denial of denial of service

Andy Armstrong wrote: -fexceptions Enable exception handling. Generates extra code needed to propagate exceptions. For some targets, this implies GCC will generate frame unwind information for all functions, which can produce significant data size overhead, although it does not

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:44, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I rarely look at gcc assembly, but I remember it saving things too. -fexceptions Enable exception handling. Generates extra code needed to propagate exceptions. For some targets, this implies GCC will generate frame unwind information

Re: Denial of denial of service

Martin Ebourne wrote: On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 10:04 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I don't like throw/catch in C++ because it slows down the entire body of code What are you talking about? There is no reason for there to be any performance impact at all on C++ code which handles exceptions right

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 10:04 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > I don't like throw/catch in C++ because it slows down the entire body of code What are you talking about? There is no reason for there to be any performance impact at all on C++ code which handles exceptions right up until the point where

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: Back when I was a young programmer, error handling was done by explicitly passing status back up the call chain. You always checked the error status of every call, and handled it or aborted *right there* with the proximate error cause if you couldn't. It is done this way

Re: Denial of denial of service

Bringing it back on topic... http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22+hate+%22&btnG=Search

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 27, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Robert Rothenberg wrote: http://www.google.com/codesearch? hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+the+wrong+way+to+do+this%22&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22too+tired%22&btnG=Search

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:41:15PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote: > >See Google Code Search > > > >http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+the+wrong > >+way+to+do+this%22&btnG=Search > > Furthermore: > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+an+ugly+hack% > 22&btnG=

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 27 Jan 2007, at 21.34, Robert Rothenberg wrote: On 26/01/07 21:48 Timothy Knox wrote: On the other hand, the guy who inherited the build system showed me a comment in the code to the effect "This is the wrong way to do this, but by the time it becomes a problem I expect to be long gone

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 26/01/07 21:48 Timothy Knox wrote: > On the other hand, the guy who inherited the build system showed me a comment > in > the code to the effect "This is the wrong way to do this, but by the time it > becomes a problem I expect to be long gone." Nice, eh? See Google Code Search http://www.go

Java Hate (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On 26/01/07 16:36 Dan Noe wrote: > ...At work we use C# and I constantly see code like: > > try > { > // do some stuff > } > catch (Exception) > { > throw new UnrelatedException(); > } I've not had the pleasure or pain of using C#, so I'll take a wild guess and say it's just like Jav

Re: Denial of denial of service

Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:59:02PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > -spc (There's a reason why I never maintain code not written by me) Ah, what joy that would be, but alas and alack, my career has consisted mostly of maintaining code not written by me. In fact, my current

Re: Denial of denial of service

Yossi Kreinin wrote: Incompetent exception handling (especially removing all useful context information) deserves it's own hate. But what I find outrageous is that /undefined behavior/, such as access violations, is silently ignored. Ignoring exceptions is idiotic; ignoring undefined behavior

Re: Denial of denial of service

It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > Some programs crash when they crash. Can't their authors handle errors? > > By "errors", I mean things like *(int*)0xACDC = 0xABBA; > By "handle", I mean things like signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN); > > So the program won't crash when it crash

Re: Denial of denial of service

Dan Noe wrote: And, if you regularly read the DailyWTF, you'll see that incompetant exception handling is a regular occurance. Incompetent exception handling (especially removing all useful context information) deserves it's own hate. But what I find outrageous is that /undefined behavior/,

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:03:22PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > And you don't even need to work hard to make your program deny the crash - > just develop your programs on Microsoft Windows (tm) using Microsoft Visual > C++ (tm)! Look how easy it is: > > 1. "Structured exception handling" (the _

Denial of denial of service

Some programs crash when they crash. Can't their authors handle errors? By "errors", I mean things like *(int*)0xACDC = 0xABBA; By "handle", I mean things like signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN); And you don't even need to work hard to make your program deny the crash - just develop your programs on Micr