5 ms·

Not everybody works in web development. Generally, C++ is mostly used for anything where performance is paramount. Personally, I write audio code. I rarely have

Not everybody works in web development. Generally, C++ is mostly used for anything where performance is paramount. Personally, I write audio code. I rarely have memory issues because most of it is just number crunching. I am working in timespans of microseconds, so speed is the ultimate concern.

GoblinSlayer 4y ago
Not quality? What if an out of bounds access produces a noisy peak once per ten minutes of audio?
- spacechild1 4y ago
  I just fix the code?
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
In fact, we have had bounds checking C and C++ extensions for decades, and practically no one uses them save for debugging purposes. This kind of shows how much interest there really is outside of some smaller circles where it may be relevant. I really doubt we are every going to see a "hardened C++" making any inroads, but at least I find that slightly more plausible than any other new language displacing it.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  Yes, a comment mentions something that I have seen more than once in practice: project use bound-checked access on std::vector, but it was too slow, so instead people turn to calling data() to get a raw pointer and use operator[] on that one which removes all possible form of safety.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    They won't have any alternative when running in platforms with hardware memory tagging, it will be only a matter of time until all new mainstream OSes are only available in such form.
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      Obviously they would have an alternative, you can just mark all your memory with the same tag. Object tagging in hardware is practically as old as... lisp?
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Not when only the kernel is allowed to do that, and syscalls require root access.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        Certainly you still can. It's not like the kernel is going to forbid a user process from using its memory to arrange a heap (or anything else) in any way it wants.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Yes it will, because the relevant assembly instructions aren't available to userspace, in most current designs. Trying to do otherwise will trap.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        I think we are miscommunicating here, because you are claiming something which is obviously impossible. What is going to prevent a process from _writing to AND reading from its own memory_ exactly? Its "own memory" may be anything including potentially a large object of size "MAXMEM" that it just got from the system, which the program is then going to arrange into any way it likes and which is going to include a heap and vectors and whatever. This is not a ridiculous over-the-top example, this is literally how most programs under most operating systems work these days... If your system provides a special allocator that actually does tell the hardware which allocations correspond to which object then that's nice (and not a new thing... many lisp machines had this, plus x86 segmentation, etc.), but it really does not prevent and cannot prevent a process using the allocated memory however it sees fit. The only thing that could is throwing turing-completeness out of the window. Yes, (ancient) x86 segments are a form of memory tagging. I always found it ironic that many people complain about "the PDP-11 memory model" and yet we already had a popular architecture trying to get away from it.. only to result in one of the most hated memory models ever. While you can definitely do better, I am skeptical that any new type of memory tagging is going to improve significantly on it.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Android makes use of FORTIFY in production, https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/04/fortify-in-android.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/04/fortify-in... And is one of the drivers to have memory hardware tagging enabled in all devices, just like Microsoft is doing with Pluton, Oracle has been doing for a decade with Solaris SPARC, and Apple is adding to their ARM flavours as well.

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

Not quality? What if an out of bounds access produces a noisy peak once per ten minutes of audio?

spacechild1 4y ago
I just fix the code?

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

In fact, we have had bounds checking C and C++ extensions for decades, and practically no one uses them save for debugging purposes. This kind of shows how much interest there really is outside of some smaller circles where it may be relevant. I really doubt we are every going to see a "hardened C++" making any inroads, but at least I find that slightly more plausible than any other new language displacing it.

jcelerier 4y ago
Yes, a comment mentions something that I have seen more than once in practice: project use bound-checked access on std::vector, but it was too slow, so instead people turn to calling data() to get a raw pointer and use operator[] on that one which removes all possible form of safety.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  They won't have any alternative when running in platforms with hardware memory tagging, it will be only a matter of time until all new mainstream OSes are only available in such form.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    Obviously they would have an alternative, you can just mark all your memory with the same tag. Object tagging in hardware is practically as old as... lisp?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Not when only the kernel is allowed to do that, and syscalls require root access.
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        Certainly you still can. It's not like the kernel is going to forbid a user process from using its memory to arrange a heap (or anything else) in any way it wants.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Yes it will, because the relevant assembly instructions aren't available to userspace, in most current designs. Trying to do otherwise will trap.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        I think we are miscommunicating here, because you are claiming something which is obviously impossible. What is going to prevent a process from _writing to AND reading from its own memory_ exactly? Its "own memory" may be anything including potentially a large object of size "MAXMEM" that it just got from the system, which the program is then going to arrange into any way it likes and which is going to include a heap and vectors and whatever. This is not a ridiculous over-the-top example, this is literally how most programs under most operating systems work these days... If your system provides a special allocator that actually does tell the hardware which allocations correspond to which object then that's nice (and not a new thing... many lisp machines had this, plus x86 segmentation, etc.), but it really does not prevent and cannot prevent a process using the allocated memory however it sees fit. The only thing that could is throwing turing-completeness out of the window. Yes, (ancient) x86 segments are a form of memory tagging. I always found it ironic that many people complain about "the PDP-11 memory model" and yet we already had a popular architecture trying to get away from it.. only to result in one of the most hated memory models ever. While you can definitely do better, I am skeptical that any new type of memory tagging is going to improve significantly on it.
pjmlp 4y ago
Android makes use of FORTIFY in production, https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/04/fortify-in-android.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/04/fortify-in... And is one of the drivers to have memory hardware tagging enabled in all devices, just like Microsoft is doing with Pluton, Oracle has been doing for a decade with Solaris SPARC, and Apple is adding to their ARM flavours as well.