Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #1091

Re: Safe Pointers at the Intermediate Language or Hardware Level

Show all headers | View raw

> A safe pointer (cap) is more than 64 bits, and people would refuse to
> repeat the pain of the 32- to 64-bit migration. And most programs
> violate safety (and language standards, but that's another issue), and
> it's hard to make a sale when the customers keep saying "It worked on
> Intel!".

I have a proposal of my own although, I am not sure about the cons and
hence would like to discuss on this forum.


i) All pointers have the same type called pointer_t.

ii) A pointer_t contains the address of a struct whose contents
    are the information relevant to what the pointer is pointing to
   including the type of the element.

There are a lot of questions but the one I am worried about
currently is whether it is possible to have direct HW support.

Sincerely,
Seima Rao.
[You might want to spend a little while learning about the history of
the Burroughs stack architectures.  They did (still do, I guess) all
of this stuff back in the 1960s. -John]

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Safe Pointers at the Intermediate Language or Hardware Level Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com> - 2014-02-11 14:35 +0530
  Re: Safe Pointers at the Intermediate Language or Hardware Level Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-02-12 14:19 -0800

csiph-web