Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 13:21:58
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It's also necessary if you want to introduce stack buffer overflow attacks.
>> Now, I don't question the right of every C++ programmer to be able to
>> overflow the stack, but I don't like this ability being presented under the
>> name "push_back".
> I agree strongly with Peter.
> The default needs to be safety, unless there is something to indicate
> the danger is accepted. Thus push_back() could throw on overflow,
I rather have auto_buffer to be growable. Having an exception thrown
is rarely what the user wants. I wanted auto_buffer to be a SBO class with
a STL interface.
Maybe it would be nice to have a SBO class for heterogeneous array as well?
> while unchecked_push_back() could have the semantics of the current
> push_back() implementation. There are probably other approaches, too,
> that would provide reasonable security.
Having unchecked_push_back can't hurt.
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk