Safe C library

[jacob navia]

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

[jacob navia]

Bryan a écrit :

<snip>

I know Rich, and he does have a sense of humour, he's just not a big
fan of idiots.

P.S. Hi Rich, how's stuff ?

If he doesn't like idiots, as you say, why do you
expect an answer?

:-)

[Bryan]

On 5 Feb, 12:33, jacob navia <[e-mail] comp.frwrote:

Bryan a écrit :

<snip>

I know Rich, and he does have a sense of humour, he's just not a big
fan of idiots.

P.S. Hi Rich, how's stuff ?

If he doesn't like idiots, as you say, why do you
expect an answer?

:-)

What makes you think I expect an answer ?

;-)

[Richard Heathfield]

[attribs abbrev'd]
Bryan said:

artifact wrote:

>Kenny McCormack wrote:

artifact wrote:

<snip>

>Grow a sense of humour please.

He does. It is heathfield (and others, but heathfield is the
archetype) who has none.

Well I can't discount that, I don't know either of them.

<snip>

I know Rich, and he does have a sense of humour,

Oh no I don't!

he's just not a big fan of idiots.

Actually, I don't have a problem with idiots per se. I just don't think
they should try to write computer programs. But that doesn't seem to
stop them, alas.

The "difficult bit in the title" post should make it obvious to anyone
who knows the reference.

Indeed - but so few people nowadays have the benefit of a classical
education. I blame the Government.

P.S. Hi Rich, how's stuff ?

At this point, I think we'd better take it to email. This is hardly the
place to share even a virtual beer. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Chris Hills]

In article <W-*************** *************** @bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrites

>Chris Hills said:

>In article <BK************ *************** ***@comcast.com >, Joe Wright
<jo********@co mcast.netwrites

>>>Chris Hills wrote:

<snip>

>>>BTW it covers all 2000 functions in the C library..... :-)

There are 2,000 functions ?

AFAIR there are 483 in the ISO standard library...

If that is true and my count of 140 in C89 is correct (and if it isn't,
it's at least approximately right), C99 must have added well over 300
functions, more than trebling the size of the library. I found that
hard to believe, so I went and had a look. I didn't actually count
them, but it looks about right, yes. I still find it hard to believe,
but it does appear to be true.

Now you know why I get pissed of when people here piously say we only
do "Standard" C here but include K&R1, K&R2, ANSI 89 ISO C90,
93,95,96, 99 all and any National versions and any committee draft (of
any vintage) as "Standard C"

Then scream at any one who mentions anything that is "not standard C"
when 95% of the real programming community use C as per a subset of
some of the standards above with extensions.

Well, when MS get their "safe c" though you will find that all the MS
programmers will KNOW that the MS library is "Standard C" (because of
the TR). They will also know that by definition anyone not using the MS
C library will not be standard or safe....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <11************ *********@p10g2 000cwp.googlegr oups.com>,
santosh <sa*********@gm ail.comwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <BK************ *************** ***@comcast.com >, Joe Wright
<jo********@co mcast.netwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:
In article <87************ @bsb.me.uk>, Ben Bacarisse
<be********@b sb.me.ukwrites
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:

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

This is one the most preposterous documents I've seen[1]. It would
make an interesting tutorial if it was as an essay from and
undergraduate , but as a serious proposal from a major software
company? Might it actually get in?
Unfortunately yes.
I argued against it from the fist time I saw it in 2004.
BTW it covers all 2000 functions in the C library..... :-)

There are 2,000 functions ?

AFAIR there are 483 in the ISO standard library... The remainder are
in the MS library.

What *will* happen is MS will say that "their" SAFE-C library is ISO
approved. Also the only people who can support the full ISO-C SAFE.
Library is MS "everyone else is non-standard"

This is why I was not happy when I first saw it in 2004.

It will mean by implication and marketing that MS has a standards
conforming SAFE library and everyone else has an unsafe non conforming
library....

How can Microsoft's C library be conforming if it doesn't yet support
all of C99's requirements?

It is as good as most and better than quite a few I have been told by
people who should know.

>Also, if the "Safe C" functions do get
approved by ISO, (touch wood)

I hope not as they are not really "safe" as such

>, doesn't it mean that other implementors
would add them to their libraries too?

Yes... So you add them to an 8051 library.... The 8051 is an 8 bit micro
that makes you about 30% of the MCU our in the world today...

The point is apart from the fairly narrow PC programming circles no one
wants or needs the MS library. There are many 8 and 16 bit systems put
there where this library is pointless.

How then will MS's library
alone be a "Safe" C library, let alone a conforming one?

Very good question

>Forgive my ignorance of ISO methodologies, if any.

Actually this will be a TR or ISO Technical Report. This is NOT part of
the standard but as MS people will tell you most TR's eventually become
part of the standard. However whilst most do get in some do not.

I had reports of MS people suggesting that "it will be in the next
standard" However this is her-say I have not seen that in print or had
it said to me personally. Though they have crossed that line on the
C++ C++/CLI bun fight AFAIK

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>
Well, when MS get their "safe c" though you will find that all the MS
programmers will KNOW that the MS library is "Standard C" (because of
the TR). They will also know that by definition anyone not using the
MS C library will not be standard or safe....

Sure, but then many MS programmers KNOW that main returns void, that
fflush(stdin) clears to newline, that gets is a perfectly acceptable
input technique, and so on and so forth. I'm not overly impressed by
the "knowledge" of such MS programmers.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Chris Hills]

In article <nf************ *************** ***@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrites

>Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>>
Well, when MS get their "safe c" though you will find that all the MS
programmers will KNOW that the MS library is "Standard C" (because of
the TR). They will also know that by definition anyone not using the
MS C library will not be standard or safe....

Sure, but then many MS programmers KNOW that main returns void, that
fflush(stdin ) clears to newline, that gets is a perfectly acceptable
input technique, and so on and so forth. I'm not overly impressed by
the "knowledge" of such MS programmers.

Me neither but if enough of them believe it is the standard and MS
behave like it is we have the same situation as BASIC.

ISO Obsoleted the ISO BASIC standard a few years ago because the whole
world ignored it and uses VB instead.

ISO C is hardly alive and well now. Few C99 implications. No one really
that bothered or since 1999 they would have fully implemented it.

The other problem is that globally these days most cs students learn MS
languages
..


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

ISO C is hardly alive and well now.

C89 thrives. C99 is dead in the water.

Few C99 implications. No one
really that bothered or since 1999 they would have fully implemented
it.

Yes, because C99 was a fairly pointless exercise. C89 remains an
excellent, high-performance, extensible, widely-used language. Yes,
there are things that could be done to improve it, but C99 included
almost none of them, and put a load of extraneous stuff in instead. One
can hardly blame implementors for ignoring it.

The other problem is that globally these days most cs students learn
MS languages

That's their problem, not mine. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys .orgwrites:

In article <11************ *********@p10g2 000cwp.googlegr oups.com>,
santosh <sa*********@gm ail.comwrites

[...]

How can Microsoft's C library be conforming if it doesn't yet support
all of C99's requirements?

It is as good as most and better than quite a few I have been told by
people who should know.

The point, I presume, is that it conforms to C90 but not to C99 (as
many libraries do, at least to a first approximation).

[...]

, doesn't it mean that other implementors
would add them to their libraries too?

Yes... So you add them to an 8051 library.... The 8051 is an 8 bit
micro that makes you about 30% of the MCU our in the world today...

The point is apart from the fairly narrow PC programming circles no
one wants or needs the MS library. There are many 8 and 16 bit systems
put there where this library is pointless.

If this library, as advertised, provides "safer" versions of standard
library functions, it should be useful on any hosted implementation,
not just in "fairly narrow PC programming circles". It might not be
useful on embedded (freestanding) implementations -- but the same is
true of most of the standard library, and nobody complains about the
fact that the standard library is part of the standard. (People
certainly complain about the standard library, but not usually about
its existence.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <_P************ *********@bt.co m>,
Malcolm McLean <re*******@btin ternet.comwrote :

>I've just shelled out over 500 pounds on a nice new dual core machine with
Windows Vista. I installed my version of Visual Studio and, guess what, the
C library is the safest imaginable. The compiler won't link in any code at
all or produce an executable. Such heights of security could not be achieved
by any other company.

Perhaps it's just enforcing the EULA, which apparently prohibits working
around any technical limitations in the software.
If it doesn't do whatever it is your program does when it's shipped,
that's Obviously a technical limitation, so you're not allowed to do
anything about it.
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub .uwaterloo.ca
Don't worry. All my mistakes are strictly necessary. (And I didn't make the
unnecessary mistake of which you are thinking.)
--Richard Heathfield in comp.programmin g