News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C. Parent comment

Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C by pjmlp on Thursday February 19, 2026 @02:22PM (#47077919)
Fujsitsu also does SPARC, and contrary to HP-UX, people still do buy Solaris.

EDIT:

https://www.oracle.com/servers/sparc/

https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/computing/servers/un...

Finally, it is up to Intel and AMD to come up with hardware memory tagging, so far they have messed up all attempts, with MPX being the last short lived one.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C by kbolino on Thursday February 19, 2026 @02:32PM (#47078051)
It's good info, and I wouldn't rush a migration off of SPARC systems if I was already using them, but slow death is still death. It was already worrying that workstations were killed off by Sun before the Oracle acquisition; it seems quite clear that no one has been serious about spreading adoption of the architecture for more than two decades now.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C by rbanffy on Friday February 20, 2026 @09:10AM (#47088266)
Even Fujitsu has been moving away from SPARC. What was the last SPARC Fujitsu designed?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C by pjmlp on Friday February 20, 2026 @03:06PM (#47093184)
What matters is that they are still selling them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C by rbanffy on Sunday February 22, 2026 @06:17AM (#47110108)
Kind of. Atos still sell GCOS/GECOS mainframes, but they are Xeon boxes running emulators. Same with Unisys and MCP (which was written in an ALGOL and had bounds checked IIRC).
[ Parent | on HN ]