2 ms·
It's strict aliasing that's the issue, not the mapping of memory to a address space. You run into the same issues with a global segment.
by monocasa 5y ago
It's strict aliasing that's the issue, not the mapping of memory to a address space. You run into the same issues with a global segment.
- pjmlp 5y agoBoth are a problem, because they can only be implemented outside ISO C semantics. That is why I tend to always write ISO C instead of C.
- monocasa 5y agoOne's not a blocker to a malloc implementation since you could otherwise just cut up a static char buffer. Coordinating with the OS is a nice to have. Strict aliasing is hard blocker. Hence why that's the issue under discussion. And I'm not sure I understand why you're using the inability to describe certain actions as the reason why you use ISO C.
- astrange 5y agoImplementations of C have more functionality than C itself - like inline assembly or syscalls or machine-specific intrinsics, so it can do more. ISO C only has what's written in the standard. (A syscall is an example of "something you can only do because the implementation isn't visible to the caller" - it can violate aliasing that way.) Also, my argument isn't about type aliasing, it's about UB on out of bounds pointers. Could be some other aliasing issues though.