Re: A Famous Security Bug

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:07:44 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 24/03/2024 20:49, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...] 

But what people want are the conveniences and familiarity of a HLL,
without the bloody-mindedness of an optimising C compiler. 

[...]
 
Exactly which people want that?
 
The evidence suggests that, while some people undoubtedly want that
(and it's a perfectly legitimate desire), there isn't enough demand
to induce anyone to actually produce such a thing and for it to
catch on. Developers have had decades to define and implement the
kind of language you're talking about.  Why haven't they?
 

Perhaps many settle for using C but using a lesser C compiler or one
with optimisation turned off.
 

What is "lesser C compiler"?
Something like IAR ? Yes, people use it.
Something like TI? People use it when they have no other choice.
20 years ago there were Diab Data, Kiel and few others. I didn't hear
about them lately.
Microchip, I'd guess, still has its own compilers for many of their
families, but that's because they have to. "Bigger" compilers dont want
to support this chips.
On the opposite edge of scale, IBM has compilers for their mainframes
and for POWER/AIX. The former are used widely. The later are quickly
losing to "bigger' compilers running on the same platform.
As to tcc, mcc, lccwin etc... those only used by hobbyists. Never by
pro. The only "lesser" PC-hosted PC-targeting C compilers that are used
by significant amount of pro developers are Intel and
Borland/Embarcadero, the later strictly for historical reasons.
Embarcadero switched their dev suits to "bigger" compiler quite a few
years ago, but some people like their old stuff. Well, may be, National
Instruments compiler still used? I really don't know.