Richard Kenner wrote: > I was addressing the claim that we allegedly have people writing security- > and/or safety-critical software who don't understand the semantics of that > language as they relate to safety and security (namely, what overflows do). > That's a serious problem. Of course, there's not a whole lot that we > as compiler writers can do with it (hence my smiley).
You're misrepresenting the argument here. This is not just about newly written software, but also about software that already has been written. It's not just about security-critical software (whatever you think that is), but about the software you and I use every day. Think your desktop system. It's also not about programmers who don't understand about overflows, but about those who believe that overflows happen in a consistent manner. Also, of course there is something you can do as compiler writers, and that is to enable LIA-1 behaviour by default. "It's not my fault if people write buggy software" is a lame excuse for sloppy engineering on the part of gcc. It's not too much to ask to try a little harder to at least be consistent. Andreas
