Hacker News Reader

I wish they would have gone more indepth about the current compiler work, such as stack defenses or fbounds-safety. It should cover OOB read and write safety, which is 70-80% of C's memory vulnerabilities, for a marginal performance overhead and with abi compatibility.

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html

View on HN

Because C and C++ not Python, they are ISO standards with multiple implementations, in a mix of vendors.

While such improvements are very much welcomed, not everyone uses clang, nor clang supports every kind of computer and OS used in the world.

Since the rest of the advisory is demanding full scale rewrites into a new language based on llvm that has officially nuetered it's gcc port, I don't think they really care about those sorts of concerns. Hence my annoyance at their proposal. The fbounds devs do, as the design allows for modified source to be still compilable in alternative toolchains that do not support fbounds (you can remove them via macros) and they are working to add it to gcc. And I don't think its going to matter much soon if it's limited to gcc/llvm, as all the proprietary vendors left and right are dropping their 30+ year compilers to piggyback off llvm (I don't exactly agree with this btw, but it is what it is).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com