News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Checked C by adxlarbi on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @07:49AM (#11901342)
but here in the case of Microsoft Checked C , you still need to modify your actual source code to get safer one.
Re:Checked C by fao_ on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:28AM (#11901542)
But you're moving to a safer subset, not a safer superset, so it still shouldn't require significant alterations.
Re:Checked C by mixedCase on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @11:12AM (#11902485)
Uhhh moving from set to subset is what requires alterations, set to superset does not, by definition.

The problem here is compiler support and performance.

Re:Checked C by fao_ on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @04:40PM (#11905159)
C++ is an altered and extended form of C, thus I would say it is more accurate to call it a superset, rather than a subset. I'm not using precise definitions here.

And of course, but those will come in time. The point of it is that C++ isn't any safer (And actually, I would say is more risky in some aspects, because of the differences between (For example) the UB in C and C++), while Checked C is guaranteed to be safer, to a certain degree.

Re:Checked C by cleeus on Friday June 17, 2016 @04:11AM (#11921234)
OK, I have to admit that Checked C is probably strictly safer while C++ is ... a mixed thing (both safer and more complicated).