[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:04:13 +0200
From: Jens Staal <staal1978@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: checked C (clang) vs musl?
On torsdag 16 juni 2016 kl. 17:48:47 CEST Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Jens Staal <staal1978@...il.com> [2016-06-16 17:35:07 +0200]:
> > and apparently they have made a modified llvm/clang for checked C.
> > https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang
> >
> > anyone tested this vs musl?
>
> i thought it would need a lot of annotations to be useful.
It introduces some new types etc, but I thought it also analyzed existing
vanilla C code for unsafe behaviour. I just saw the news so I have not really
read up on it, but was curious to know if someone had.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
