Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: Brian Inglis: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Tom Linden: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Tom Linden: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:51:45 -0500
Bryan Olson wrote:
> C still remains popular do mostly to inertia.
Usually, it is due to wider availability, producing a
smaller footprint, faster target execution, better
support tools, and/or any of a number of other factors.
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: Brian Inglis: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Tom Linden: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Reply: Tom Linden: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
