Re: Memory safe implementations of C/C++

Corky, thanks for the pointer to Ellis and Detlefs's work.

> I am not an expert on the ANSI Standard for C but I would be
> very surprised if the restrictions required for memory safety are
> compatible with an efficient implementation of the standard.

As I said, until now all "safe" implementations of C have been an
order of magnitude slower than "unsafe" C.  Necula and company are
only a factor of two slower (sometimes even less) because they use a
type system to discover when pointers are used in a provably safe way
that does not require overhead.  They don't quite implement ANSI C,
but it seems that their technique should extend to doing so.

-- P