Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers

[Chris Lattner]

> 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)

If possible, that definately sounds like the best idea... GDB will still
need to be enhanced however.  If nothing else, printing out and
dereferencing fat pointers is different than normal pointers.  I assume
that this enhancement would be more clean than an outright hack (which GDB
doesn't need) to remove the prefix...

-Chris

http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/
http://www.nondot.org/MagicStats/
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/