This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers


I wrote:
> > It might be possible, for specific libraries, to write a set of thunks
> > that would allow bounds-checked code to call the non-bounds-checked C
> > library...
> > Such things might be necessary for people on OSes that don't
> > have a free C library to use the bounds checking compiler.

Greg writes:
> We have limited resources.  Bending over backwards to support non-free
> OSes is a poor use of those resources.  Much better to press forward
> in the land of the free.

By mentioning it I didn't mean to imply that you should do it!

Certainly you shouldn't waste your time implementing this.  Once BP-gcc
is successful, other folks might be interested in contributing it.
There might be speed advantages to doing it this way even with the free
glibc, or memory savings for folks running a mix of BP and non-BP apps,
but then improving gcc's optimization might make it unnecessary.



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