This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PR19351, C++] Fix heap overflow in operator new[]


On 2/6/2011 10:27 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

>> And are you looking at compilers used for embedded systems,
>> or for workstations/servers, or both?
> 
> Sorry, no embedded targets here.  (I think comparison with
> traditionally broken compilers is not very helpful, BTW.)

I'm not sure what compilers you consider "traditionally broken".  I'd be
careful about making such statements; certainly, some embedded compilers
have a reputation as good as GCC in many communities.

Perhaps it makes sense to enable this behavior by default on
workstation/server systems.  I'm skeptical that it's a good idea to do
so on embedded systems.  Fortunately, nothing says that we need to have
the same defaults on all systems; it's perfectly reasonable that the
default behavior for a system with gigabytes of RAM is different from
one with kilobytes of flash.

I'm not opposed to having a mode in which we offer the check, but I am
opposed to doing this by default on embedded systems -- except when
conformance with a version of the standard that requires the check is
requested by the user.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]