Boost logo

Boost :

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.

> --Beman


Felipe Magno de Almeida

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at