3 ms·
You don't even need to reverse it. It's in the public clang, and I'm working on helping my team adopt it in some test cases. And it's not just the bounds-check
by EPWN3D 1y ago
You don't even need to reverse it. It's in the public clang, and I'm working on helping my team adopt it in some test cases.
And it's not just the bounds-checking that's great -- it makes a bunch of C anti-patterns much harder, and it makes you think a lot harder about pointer ownership and usage. Really a great addition to the language, and it's source-compatible with empty macro-definitions (with two exceptions).
- kragen 1y agoInteresting! How do you get started?
- EPWN3D 11mo ago-fbounds-safety is the flag. https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html
- pizlonator 11mo ago> It's in the public clang I think you’re thinking of something else
- debugnik 11mo agoIt or something similar has apparently been upstreamed to clang as -fbounds-safety. I don't know if they're the same, but the RFC on -fbounds-safety does give some credit to the author of Fil-C, who also took credit for firebloom on this thread as well.
- pizlonator 11mo agoNot the same
- debugnik 11mo agoThanks for clarifying, I had found a past HN comment stating they are the same.