This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Most of this page is a re-edit of the "Cyclone: a safe dialect of C" document. Many thanks to Trevor Jim, Greg Morrisett, Dan Grossman, Michael Hicks, James Cheney and Yanling Wang for creating great software and great documents to spread the word with.

From the article:

The simple change of * to @ saves the programmer from having to write NULL checks and the operating system from having to trap NULL pointer dereferences. This extra restriction, however, can be a rather large stumbling block for most C programmers, who are used to being able to manipulate their pointers directly with arithmetic. Although this is desirable, it can lead to buffer overflows and other off-by-one-style attacks.

I don't understand the second sentence. If the "extra restriction" it refers to is the fact that never-NULL pointers can't be NULL, what does this have to do with pointer arithmatic? Neilc 01:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pointer-arithmetics is not allowed with never-NULL pointers.

Anyone know how Cyclone compares with MISRA C? --Rebroad 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

MISRA C is a set of guidlines, whereas Cyclone is an entirely new language with safety from the ground up -- LiteStar Litestar (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What does 'although' mean in the following sentence?

Although Cyclone looks, in general, much like C, it should be thought of as a C-like language.

JadeNB (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

although means that even if it resembles C, thus looks almost like C, it's considered a seperate language and should be thought of as a C-like language. I'm non-native, hence I might have gotten it wrong ... 220.142.130.173 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://math.ifi.uzh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/cyclone-1.0-1.src.rpm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607170455/http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/rej/morrisett-4.2.03.ppt to http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/rej/morrisett-4.2.03.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply