duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-BenchmarksGame
View on GitHub ↗ ★ 5 C++
Some benchmarks for SaferCPlusPlus
12 mentions on Hacker News by 2 people: 0 stories, 12 comments · first 2016-12-20 · latest 2020-01-24
20082026
-
I think the answer is yes. There's a complementary project [1] that aims to enforce a slightly more restricted memory safe subset of C++ than the lifetime profile checker does (or eventually will). The restrictions do not manifest as…
comment by safercplusplus · 2020-01-24 · in The C++ Lifetime Profile: How It Plans to Make C++ Code Safer -
> like a weak pointer that work with unique_ptr, but I do not think it is possible to do this while preserving zero overhead implementation I think the type of pointer you're asking for basically does exist. First, you want to distinguish…
comment by safercplusplus · 2019-04-16 · in Virtually Unlimited Memory: Escaping the Chrome Sandbox -
> What guarantees that the "while" loop will not run away and take "data" outside the array bounds? What do you mean "the array bounds"? The code is memory safe. "data" is an iterator that knows exactly what array/container it's pointing…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2019-03-19 · in Achieving Safety Incrementally with Checked C -
They are working on it. The analogue to the borrow checker in C++ is called the "lifetime profile checker" and (an incomplete version) is included in MS Visual C++, but last time I checked (in January) it seemed to still have too many…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2019-03-07 · in Serious Chrome zero-day -
I suggest that the most expedient (cheapest) language to migrate the existing code base to would be a memory safe subset of C++ [1]. In practice most of the safety benefit could be obtained from a just a partial migration. Specifically,…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2019-03-07 · in Serious Chrome zero-day -
Well if you're starting a project now that you expect to live for many years, there's the issue of C++ safety now, and C++ safety in the foreseeable future. Right now projects have the option of building with the santizers (particularly…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2019-01-10 · in The State of Software Security in 2019 -
> I want the standards committee to produce a bounds-checked dialect of C where I can choose to pay some perf cost to get real dynamic and bounds-checked arrays If you don't want to wait on the standards committee, the SaferCPlusPlus…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2018-10-09 · in The benefits and costs of writing a POSIX kernel in a high-level language -
Not technically a separate language, SaferCPlusPlus[1] is a memory safe dialect/subset of C++. As far as I know, it is by far the highest performance[2] solution currently available for addressing memory safety in C/C++ code (aside from…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2017-03-07 · in Ask HN: Have you created a programming language and why? -
Yes. But there's also substantial cost in abandoning existing C/C++ codebases and rewriting them from scratch. Since the advances of C++11, something like SaferCPlusPlus[1] (a memory safe dialect/subset of C++) might be a more…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2017-03-04 · in Rust Faster Than C? Not So Fast… -
As we've discussed, one issue is the big performance cost of these solutions. Anyone interested in working on an automatic C to SaferCPlusPlus[1] translator? It should address the performance issue[2]. And should be much more…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2017-01-04 · in Getting Past C -
While you're checking out the performance of Rust and Go benchmark implementations, you can also check out some SaferCPlusPlus benchmarks[1] (and kind of compare them with other languages (transitively via the C++ benchmaks)). I've already…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2016-12-28 · in Rust vs C Pitfalls -
While this is a great site for comparing "maximum language speed potential", I think in 2016 it would also be of interest to compare the performance of memory safe implementations as well. This would be particularly relevant for languages…
comment by duneroadrunner · 2016-12-20 · in The Computer Language Benchmarks Game