Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That won't solve it. Fil-C's memory safety relies on the Fil-C runtime




Just as the sanitizers have a runtime, the linux kernel has a re-implementation of those runtimes (the linux kernel does not link libgcc/compiler_rt) and IIRC the compiler will work differently (I forget which flags control that). Prior art here.

The sanitizer runtime is not nearly as complex as the Fil-C runtime.

Sanitizers don't have to deal with:

- https://fil-c.org/fugc

- https://fil-c.org/safepoints

Oh and it's not clear if the current revision of the capability model would work with memory mapped IO: https://fil-c.org/invisicaps


Does fil-c have a way of disabling the capability model for regions of code? (Rust's `unsafe` blocks come to mind).

Maybe if I ask enough stupid questions, you'll get pissed and get the kernel to build/work with fil-c just to prove a stranger on the internet wrong. :P


> Does fil-c have a way of disabling the capability model for regions of code? (Rust's `unsafe` blocks come to mind).

Nope

> Maybe if I ask enough stupid questions, you'll get pissed and get the kernel to build/work with fil-c just to prove a stranger on the internet wrong. :P

I love this attitude! :-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: