This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers
- To: John Gilmore <gnu at toad dot com>
- Subject: Re: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:54:33 +0200
- CC: Robert Bernecky <bernecky at acm dot org>, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot dot org>, greg at mcgary dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
- References: <200104180220.TAA00983@toad.com>
John Gilmore wrote:
> The whole idea, from my point of view, is to implement secure pointers
> efficiently enough that people just accept the 10-15% overhead, since
> for most people CPU cycles are close to free anyway.
Hey - you're killing my next project ! Given the non-advancing BP
effort, I thought of converting all of the free software base to Fortran
- starting Q2 next year.
That way, bounded pointers would just mean g77 -fbounds-check and you
could mix checking and non-checking code freely ...
1/2 :-)
--
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)