Hi,
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-06-04 17:32:06)
> Justus Winter, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 15:45:15 +0200, wrote:
> > tl;dr: Compiler-assisted runtime checking of port handling in
> > variables with automatic storage duration. Do we want to go there?
>
> That's interesting, but the proposed way would
Thomas Schwinge skribis:
> The next thought then occurred to me: why not use a programming language
> that allows for defining additional types, powerful enough to model the
> desired semantics? For example, if we'd compile the Hurd with a C++
> compiler (which, hopefully, will just work -- most
Thomas Schwinge, on Mon 06 Jun 2016 13:29:10 +0200, wrote:
> > > I don't enough to be sure, but isn't that the typical work of
> > > LocalitySanitizer, precisely?
> >
> > Could be! I’m not familiar with it.
>
> There is no LocalitySanitizer in GCC/LLVM. ;-)
Oops, sorry, I meant LeakSanitizer.
Hi!
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:06:35 +0200, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic
=?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) wrote:
> Samuel Thibault skribis:
> > Ludovic Courtès, on Sun 05 Jun 2016 21:53:35 +0200, wrote:
> >> Justus Winter skribis:
> >> > +#define Mach_port_check(NAME)
>
Samuel Thibault skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès, on Sun 05 Jun 2016 21:53:35 +0200, wrote:
>> Justus Winter skribis:
>> > +#define Mach_port_check(NAME) \
>> > + void _Mach_port_check_##NAME(char *_unused[] __attribute__ ((unused))) \
>> > + {
