lesenek

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by lesenek 3y ago

   If the null dereferencing happens in assembly code and not in C, it seems fine to me: the C standard is irrelevant for assembly; after all, it's the C language that introduces UB, not the machine code.
2. 2.▲
   by lesenek 3y ago

   From my understanding, I think that option only prevents the compiler from removing null checks when the pointer was dereferenced before. It was probably motivated by this incident in the Kernel[1] where an optimized-out null check conditio
3. 3.▲
   by lesenek 3y ago

   I understand the problem, but I am concerned by the solution. The problem is that C semantic is quite clear on the subject[1]: dereferencing a null pointer is undefined behavior, not "non-standard behavior" which would suggests co
4. 4.▲
   by lesenek 4y ago

   (I’m the author.) I will not then. It surprises me that the JVM would handle null pointers by hoping dereferencing one would raise a segfault, considering that the JVM is written in C AFAIK where such dereferencing invokes undefined behavio
5. 5.▲
   Unwinding the Stack the Hard Way(lesenechal.fr)

   1 points by lesenek 4y ago|1 comments
6. 6.▲
   by lesenek 4y ago

   This is the first article, feedback is welcome, I'd appreciate to know if that kind of content is interesting.