Re:A bit of background on compilers exploiting signed overflow
by stouset on Sunday May 08, 2016 @04:24PM
(#11655595)
Emphatically yes.
When designing tools for use by humans, you need to accept the fact that humans, with all our failings, will be the ones using the tools. So tools should be made resilient against typical ways in which humans fail.
We've been paying for shortcomings in C's design for decades with bugs and security failures that simply don't happen in other languages. That you refuse to see this is baffling to me.
Re:A bit of background on compilers exploiting signed overflow
by pcwalton on Sunday May 08, 2016 @04:35PM
(#11655666)
> Ok let me get this clear, you're saying that the language is at fault because the programmers don't write correct code.
Yes.
A good language makes the correct thing the easy thing.
Re:A bit of background on compilers exploiting signed overflow
by rdc12 on Sunday May 08, 2016 @11:56PM
(#11657517)
When a common idiom becomes the wrong way to do something, someone messed up pretty badly (and preexisting idiom at that).
Arguably the designers of amd64 should have caught this before releasing the ABI or the language design could have been specified so this wasn't an issue in the first place.
Ok let me get this clear, you're saying that the language is at fault because the programmers don't write correct code. I have no words.