M?sz?ros Lajos wrote: > >Yes, 'C' is unreliable because writing beyond the "maxindex" lets >you overwrite other's data, other's code and DOES make backdoor for >viruses. > >On the other hand testing every index every time for min and max slowes >the executing.
QNX does not, and Linux does not, and with both C is as unreliable as ever. However, a failure in a QNX in the driver level is not as potentially malicious as in Linux. While this does not exclude failure, and does not say a thing about the actual quality of QNX or Linux code, it's a nice _additional_ feature related towards stability. I guess Linux lacking proper certification for some applications is a much bigger obstacle in the minds of managers, anyway. But somehow this is getting offtopic, quickly, isn't it? With kind regards, Oliver Korpilla ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
