RE: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers

[Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot dot org>]

> We discarded the function-level intermixing as too low-level
> and complicated in practice. This left us with larger approaches to
> the problem of intermixing checked and non-checked code:

Another alternative way to implement this (which would allow a single libc
that contains both bounded pointer code and nonbounded pointer code to
exist in the same library), would be to mangle function names, ala
C++.  Of course you could do this really simply by simply prefixing all
functions (C as well) with __BP_ or some such ugly thing.

This isn't a wonderful solution from a cleanliness standpoint, but it
would make it "impossible" to accidentally mismatch code.  It would also
make it possible to have a library with both bounded pointer and
nonbounded pointer code linked into it, which would be nice.

-Chris

http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/
http://www.nondot.org/MagicStats/
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/