On 19 Sep 2005, at 17:40, Alan Mead wrote:
I think it's
impossible that he could get a wrong result because even if the
garbage at memory p[-3] to p[-1] matches the word ending, the word
itself will not.
There's not necessarily garbage at those locations, those addresses
may simply not b
memsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading PChars at negative indexes? Buffer underrun in other
> words... This
> is absolutely not a good thing. If FPC is preventing buffer under
> and
> overrruns, then it is actually right, for once, and Delphi is
> wrong,
> wrong, wrong!
Yeah, it seems dumb.
El Vie 16 Sep 2005 21:06, Lance Boyle escribió:
> This is very interesting. I've always wondered if anyone did this on
> purpose, and I've always wondered what the big deal is with just
> adding array range checking to C. A company with tons of internal
> software development, and whose existence i
This is very interesting. I've always wondered if anyone did this on
purpose, and I've always wondered what the big deal is with just
adding array range checking to C. A company with tons of internal
software development, and whose existence is made miserable by buffer
under/over flows, cou
> It's great that 2.0 is out! Unfortunately it seems to break some
> code I used for Porter Stemming because the code sometimes reads data
> from a pchar at negative indexes. Reportedly this works fine in
> Delphi 5 and I don't seem to have trouble with Delphi 7 but it
> generates RTEs using fpc
It's great that 2.0 is out! Unfortunately it seems to break some
code I used for Porter Stemming because the code sometimes reads data
from a pchar at negative indexes. Reportedly this works fine in
Delphi 5 and I don't seem to have trouble with Delphi 7 but it
generates RTEs using fpc 2.0. (If
