> On Aug 15, 2023, at 10:07 AM, Alexander Monakov <amona...@ispras.ru> wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > >> Does this as the first paragraph address your concerns: > > Thanks, this is nicer (see notes below). My main concern is that we shouldn't > pretend there's some method of verifying that arbitrary source code is "safe" > to pass to an unsandboxed compiler, nor should we push the responsibility of > doing that on users. Perhaps, but clearly the compiler can't do it ("Halting problem"...) so it has to be clear that the solution must be outside the compiler. paul
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC Security policy Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC Security poli... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC Security ... Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC Secu... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Paul Koning via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Paul Koning via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Alexander Monakov
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Paul Koning via Gcc-patches
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Toon Moene
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [RFC] GCC ... Alexander Monakov