News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:ARM Pointer Authentication by microcolonel on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:20AM (#14481112)
What? Are you going to force them? People write C because it is convenient, productive, and popular enough to attract contributors and find tools. C has the best dynamic analysis and debugging tools of really any language.

You can think yourself superiour and turn up your nose, but the fact remains that many people have perfectly good reasons to write and maintain C. Your haughty commentary has no impact on that.

You may think that bounds checking is the answer to all situations, but if you're writing a realtime system, there's often no point in running the program if it can fail from an out of bounds read or write anyway. In a flight control system, or an ECU, there is often nothing productive about crashing. You need to verify your pointer logic, instead of hoping your program will crash.

Re:ARM Pointer Authentication by raverbashing on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:05AM (#14481354)
> You need to verify your pointer logic, instead of hoping your program will crash.

I love how most of the comments are, in essence "you're too dumb to use C". Just check the pointers right? Too bad people who think they are too smart do get bitten by those issues

I guess that's why people won't use other technologies beyond C in embedded systems (they do use)

Re:ARM Pointer Authentication by microcolonel on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:52AM (#14481585)
You evidently didn't read and understand what you're responding to, try again.