3 ms·
Yes, and that's a laudable goal, but it's not the same problem as the one the "low-fat" pointers proposal is trying to solve. The "low-fat" pointers proposal at
by pcwalton 8y ago
Yes, and that's a laudable goal, but it's not the same problem as the one the "low-fat" pointers proposal is trying to solve. The "low-fat" pointers proposal attempts to improve the safety of existing code.
- xenadu02 8y agoIs your complaint that because we don't have a perfect automatic solution we shouldn't bother offering any solutions, not even incremental opt-in ones?
- jakear 8y agoNo, pc is simply saying that the fat pointer solution is not in line with the goals of the solution presented in the paper.
- pcwalton 8y agoI never said fat pointers shouldn't be added to C. The point is that they're irrelevant to this paper, which demonstrates a weakness in a mitigation designed to improve safety of existing code.