Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:54:55 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> Subject: Re: Purify/Insure++ Message-ID: <19980114095455.17333@emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <1818.884759528@time.cdrom.com>; from "Jordan K. Hubbard" on Tue Jan 13 22:32:08 GMT 1998 References: <1818.884759528@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jan 13), Jordan K. Hubbard said: > > I guess this begs the question as to what they would consider a > > large enough market in order to do the port? Same for pretty much > > any commercial port, how many ppl would have to commit to > > purchasing a copy to make it viable for them? > > In other words, "Forget it." If we want Insure or Purify in the free > software world, we're going to have to do our own versions and hope > that there aren't too many software patents on the process. Not sure if this is in the same area of "debugging" tools or in a different niche, but I've had good results with the bounds-checking gcc patch to 2.7.2. It slows down your program quite a bit when enabled, but does range and type checking on every variable, pointer, and array in your code. Makes finding buffer-overflow bugs a no-brainer. The code is for 2.7.2, but should build on 2.7.2.1 with minimal patching. Wonder if the egcc people are thinking about a bounds-checking patch; would be a nice addition. -Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980114095455.17333>