home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark
- From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Use of nested functions
- Message-ID: <24738@alice.att.com>
- Date: 28 Jan 93 18:30:42 GMT
- Article-I.D.: alice.24738
- References: <1993Jan13.174051.21288@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <9302002.3172@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1993Jan22.081555.12027@us-es.sel.de> <1993Jan26.224107.9187@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <9302813.18482@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <dak.728225605@cip-s03>
- Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
- Distribution: world
- Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
- Lines: 15
-
- In article <dak.728225605@cip-s03> dak@cip-s03.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:
- > One problem with trampolines and self-modifying code is that there
- > is no longer a separate, read only code space.
-
- Sure there is; is just doesn't contain the trampolines. Moreover, I don't
- think anyone is talking about self-modifying code -- we're talking
- about code that generates other code and then later executes it.
- Once generated, the code is never modified.
-
- My main problem with the technique, though, is that sometimes the
- read-only code space is the *only* code space, especially in
- secure applications.
- --
- --Andrew Koenig
- ark@europa.att.com
-