Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:34:09 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: Compiler alternatives to no-exec (was Re: non exec stack...) | From | (Kragen) |
| |
On 7 Aug 1998, David Wragg wrote: > Meelis Roos <mroos@tartu.cyber.ee> writes: > > There was a discussion on bugtraq obout bounds checking. That made > > programs _very_ slow (AFAIR about 20 times slower sometimes). C is > > not designed to be bounds checking - that's why it's so hard.
This is somewhat misleading. Naive implementations do impose a factor-of-20 overhead. The current implementations in gcc range from 50%-80% overhead to a little more than 100%.
> Yet if people can't learn to avoid the relevant bugs when they > program, then it seems to me that ad hoc fixes should be in the > language implementation rather than the kernel.
Yes. And people can't.
Kragen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |