Re: A Famous Security Bug

On 24/03/2024 23:39, Michael S wrote:

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.

AFAIK lccwin can be used commercially.
And I would recommend tcc especially for transpiled code. Because it can process it very quickly, but also because the code should already be verified so it doesn't need deep analysis.
Further, it doesn't have warnings about obscure, irrelevant matters and is unlikely to produce any surprises in the generated code.
While mcc is my private tool which is my first choice for C code that /I/ write or generate.
The bigger compilers I'm aware of are gcc, clang, and MSVC. Only gcc works on my Windows machine. For obscure but related reasons (as clang piggybacks onto MSVC) neither of those two currently work. There is also ZigCC, based around Clang I think, which at least works.
I've never heard of IAR, TI, Diab Data or Kiel. I've heard of DMC (that's another I use, but it's 32-bit), Watcom, Borland, TurboC and Intel.

Never by
pro.

What's a 'pro'? I used to use my in-house languages and compilers for commercial software; the customer paid for the application, not for the language or compiler.

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.

I guess you mean companies using big tools and big ecosystems that need equally big compilers to go with them.
I mainly use, and develop, small, nippy tools and would rate them above above any of the big, glossy ones.