jacob navia a écrit :
We have discussed often the proposition from Microsoft
for a safer C library.
A rationale document is published here by one of the members of
the design team at microsoft:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...C/default.aspx
jacob
None of the answers addresses any of the problems that this software
tries to fix.
Just the usual:
"We are the greatest" "It will be slower", "I dislike Microsoft"
and similar.
Christopher Layne says:
"The new libraries will be slower".
He doesn't explain what measurements he did to arrive at this
conclusion.
Ben Becaisse says:
But the oddest part of all is that none of the things suggested (in
the part I read, at least) is at all hard to do in standard C.
Obvious. But precisely, it is the first time somebody takes the
time to make a proposal for a STANDARD set of those functions, so
users do not have to reinvent the wheel.
Malcolm McLean complains that his compiler doesn't work. What this
has to do with the proposal is impossible to know. He doesn't explain
anything.
Cesar Rabak has the only substantive contribution to this
thread by pointing that gnu has a library that tries to address
the memory overflow problem.
This is an interesting contribution. I looked
at the library and it tries to figure if the stack return address will
be touched by functions like printf... It is nice, and I think I could
add some of that code to the printf implementation of lcc-win32 and
lcc-win64.
The other "contributi ons" (heathfield et al) are best ignored.
I am not for this proposal, even if lcc-win32 has implemented
Microsoft's proposal. The solution is to get rid of zero terminated
strings, but it is surely a step in the right direction.
jacob
