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.