Re: Safe code as an I/O requirement

2017-05-29 Thread Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
On Sunday, 28 May 2017 at 16:58:53 UTC, aberba wrote: https://lwn.net/Articles/708196/ From the look of things and feedbacks from several security analysts and system developers, [exposed] I/O needs to be memory safe. GStreamer multimedia library developed in C has safety issues [see

Re: Safe code as an I/O requirement

2017-05-28 Thread piotrklos via Digitalmars-d
On Sunday, 28 May 2017 at 16:58:53 UTC, aberba wrote: https://lwn.net/Articles/708196/ (...) Intuitively it would be much better because overwhelming majority of the code can be written with @safe, but bounds checking would have to be switched off for some plugin code for performance

Re: Safe code as an I/O requirement

2017-05-28 Thread Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d
On Sunday, 28 May 2017 at 16:58:53 UTC, aberba wrote: https://lwn.net/Articles/708196/ From the look of things and feedbacks from several security analysts and system developers, [exposed] I/O needs to be memory safe. GStreamer multimedia library developed in C has safety issues [see

Safe code as an I/O requirement

2017-05-28 Thread aberba via Digitalmars-d
https://lwn.net/Articles/708196/ From the look of things and feedbacks from several security analysts and system developers, [exposed] I/O needs to be memory safe. GStreamer multimedia library developed in C has safety issues [see article]. What would its safety be if it was written in D