From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10149 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: checked C (clang) vs musl? Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:48:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20160616154847.GS22574@port70.net> References: <1538179.HIKevB6DqT@krypton> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1466092141 8184 80.91.229.3 (16 Jun 2016 15:49:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:49:01 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10162-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jun 16 17:49:01 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bDZXR-0007Ko-5w for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:49:01 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3921 invoked by uid 550); 16 Jun 2016 15:48:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 3896 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2016 15:48:58 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1538179.HIKevB6DqT@krypton> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10149 Archived-At: * Jens Staal [2016-06-16 17:35:07 +0200]: > and apparently they have made a modified llvm/clang for checked C. > https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang > > anyone tested this vs musl? i thought it would need a lot of annotations to be useful.