Re: A Famous Security Bug

On 23/03/2024 16:25, David Brown wrote:

On 23/03/2024 01:09, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2024-03-22, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not aware that any such language exists, at least in the mainstream
(and I've looked at a *lot* of programming languages).  I conclude that
there just isn't enough demand for that kind of thing.

 I think lack of demand combines with it actually being an extremely difficult task.
 Consider something as simple as "x++;" in C.  How could that be implemented?  Perhaps the cpu has an "increment" instruction.  Perhaps it has an "add immediate" instruction.  Perhaps it needs to load 1 into a register, then use an "add" instruction.  Perhaps "x" is in memory. Some cpus can execute an increment directly on the memory address as an atomic instruction.  Some can do so, but only using specific (and more expensive) instructions.  Some can't do it at all without locking mechanisms and synchronisation loops.
 So what does this user of this mythical LLL expect when he/she writes "x++;" ?

This is not the issue the comes up in the OP (or the issue that was assumed as I don't think the OP has clarified).
There it is not about micro-managing the implementation of x++, but the compiler deciding it isn't needed at all.