Re: [PATCH]: Proof-of-concept for dynamic format checking

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes:

Ian> To make this kind of thing useful, I see two paths that we can follow.

Ian> The second approach is of course to write a little language which is
Ian> powerful enough to describe printf.  The state machine language I
Ian> described earlier is too simple and perhaps overly cryptic.

If we're doing that, why not use an already existing little language?
Then we have one less thing to maintain, document, and extend (since
you know there will be a need for extensions).

Of course this leads into the morass of picking a language.  Folks,
please resist the urge... you know what I mean.

The idea of letting gcc load a .so to do the checking also seems fine.
At least then the checking language is a standard one, not one we made
up.  I guess an intermediate approach would be to use that bytecode
back end I heard you're hacking on.

Tom