Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by musicale 2389 days ago
For some time I have been puzzled that clang and gcc don't provide an option/ABI (maybe -safe or -mcpu=x86-64-safe) for memory safety.

Last I checked, memory safety for C (e.g. fat pointers with bounds checking) seems to impose a ~60% performance overhead on traditional processors (with hardware support it could be much less.) In many (most?) cases, that overhead is worth the improvements in reliability and security.

For certain applications (probably anything network facing) I'd probably want to compile the whole OS, libraries, and software base with -safe.