3 ms·
My (overly charitable?) interpretation is, "Is Checked C so painful to write that we'd be better off just using a better managed language" Of course, if it's f
by spijdar 6y ago
My (overly charitable?) interpretation is, "Is Checked C so painful to write that we'd be better off just using a better managed language"
Of course, if it's feasible to refactor existing C code like in the paper, this seems like a good path forward, vs trying to "start over" with whatever other checked language of choice you pick.
- pjmlp 6y agoThe alternative is turn to hardware tagged memory. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri/cheri-morello.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri/cheri... https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E61059/gqajs.html https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E61059/gqajs.html https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/preparing_your_app_to_work_with_pointer_authentication https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/preparing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoOD4hmiGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoOD4hmiGE
- sitkack 6y agoGiven that we are swimming in transistors, holding on to hardware architectures that are rooted in a simplistic model keeps us from making obvious gains in software by having more capable hardware.
- pjmlp 6y agoWell, the industry could have adopted designs like Burroughs, Xerox or Genera, instead they decided to make faster PDP-11s.