From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg McGary To: "Zack Weinberg" Cc: Chris Lattner , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, bernecky@acm.org, gnu@toad.com Subject: Re: Esthetics (or worse?) of Secure Pointers Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:28:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20010417170338.A339@stanford.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00832.html "Zack Weinberg" writes: > I've been considering some sort of toggle to make gcc emit mangled > symbols for C code for awhile. The original idea was to catch > prototype mismatches at link time; there'd be no change to C > semantics. That's a fine idea in general, and with BP keyletters integrated, that solves the problems, but we also need a backup plan in the absence of mangling. For a backup plan, I think it's sufficient to mandate no mixing of BP and non-BP compilation units, distinguished by a special symbol, enforced by ld. Anyone violently disagree? (Yes, I know this is the purview of the binutils list, so we'll need to ask there about ld's role as enforcer) Greg