Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers

[Greg McGary]

"Zack Weinberg" <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:

> I've been considering some sort of toggle to make gcc emit mangled
> symbols for C code for awhile.  The original idea was to catch
> prototype mismatches at link time; there'd be no change to C
> semantics.

That's a fine idea in general, and with BP keyletters integrated, that
solves the problems, but we also need a backup plan in the absence of
mangling.

For a backup plan, I think it's sufficient to mandate no mixing of BP
and non-BP compilation units, distinguished by a special symbol,
enforced by ld.  Anyone violently disagree?  (Yes, I know this is the
purview of the binutils list, so we'll need to ask there about ld's
role as enforcer)

Greg