Po Lu via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> jwakely....@gmail.com (Jonathan Wakely) writes: > >> So let's do it. Let's write a statement saying that the GCC developers >> consider software security to be of increasing importance, and that we >> consider it irresponsible to default to accepting invalid constructs in the >> name of backwards compatibility. State that we will make some changes which >> were a break from GCC's traditional stance, for the good of the ecosystem. > > I'm sorry you think that way. > >> Given recent pushes to discourage or outright ban the use of memory-safe >> languages in some domains, I think it would be good to make a strong >> statement about taking the topic seriously. And not just make a statement, >> but take action too. >> >> If we don't do this, I believe it will harm GCC in the long run. The vocal >> minority who want to preserve the C they're used to, like some kind of >> historical reenactment society, would get their wish: it would become a >> historical dead end and go nowhere. > > Vocal minority? Do you have any evidence to back this claim? > > What I see is that some reasonable organizations have already chosen > other C compilers which are capable of supporting their existing large > bodies of C code that have seen significant investment over many years, > while others have chosen to revise their C code with each major change > to the language. > > The organizations which did not wish to change their code did not > vocally demand changes to GCC after GCC became unsuitable, but quietly > arranged to license other compilers. > > Those that continue write traditional C code know what they are doing, > and the limitations of traditional C do not affect the quality of their > code. For example, on the Unix systems at my organization, the SGS is > modified so that it will not link functions called through a declaration > with no parameter specification with a different set of parameters than > it was defined with. I think the group of people dedicated enough to patch their linker would be able to pass a flag to the compiler to allow old constructs.
