Re: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers

[Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>]

On 17-Apr-2001, Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Actually that's not always sufficient; to handle the general case,
you need to also add the prefix to data symbols.

Note that GNU C++ and most other current C++ implementations don't
mangle data symbols.  Nor do they mangle function return types.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
                                    |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.