ld
be migrated to strict mode from the bottom up. First
standard libraries, then security-critical libraries,
then security-critical applications.
What I'd like for now is an an estimate of how hard this would
be to implement in GCC. Most of the necessary features, or
something close to them, are
person there (having had them included in a pre-meeting mailing), if
> you want a wider range of implementer opinions.
That may happen, but I'm still getting comments informally at
this point. I'd like to see enough of this implemented in GCC
as an extension that people could try it out.
John Nagle
Animats
On 9/1/2012 9:59 AM, James Dennett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM, John Nagle
> wrote:
>> We have proposed an extension to C (primarily) and C++ (possibly)
>> to address buffer overflow prevention. Buffer overflows are still
>> a huge practical problem in C,
On 9/2/2012 1:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Nagle:
>
>>We have proposed an extension to C (primarily) and C++ (possibly)
>> to address buffer overflow prevention. Buffer overflows are still
>> a huge practical problem in C, and much important code is still
>
strict mode,
and would wring out the concept.
Think of it as FORTIFY on steroids. It can do the parameter
checks FORTIFY does, but for any function with an array parameter
and a size. It's not limited to a built-in list of the usual
suspect functions.
John Nagle
g.
I'd appreciate comments on how difficult phase 1 would be.
John Nagle
