Avoiding retpolines with static calls

Posted Mar 29, 2020 10:41 UTC (Sun) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
In reply to: Avoiding retpolines with static calls by ncm
Parent article: Avoiding retpolines with static calls

You are missing th historical perspective.
Stroupstrup deliberate choice to break C compatibility by adding new keyword to C++ is one barrier to overcome.

Avoiding retpolines with static calls

Posted Mar 29, 2020 12:28 UTC (Sun) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

The historical perspective includes the fact that Linux is newer than C++.

Avoiding retpolines with static calls

Posted Apr 3, 2020 18:07 UTC (Fri) by adobriyan (subscriber, #30858) [Link]

In a perfect world (lets call it TexC) keywords would start with backslash...

\let foo: u32 = 0;

Avoiding retpolines with static calls

Posted Apr 4, 2020 17:18 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that's overdoing it. Even C's done that, repeatedly. Do you blame the ANSI C committee for adding new keywords? (They added almost as many as C++ did.)

Avoiding retpolines with static calls

Posted Apr 6, 2020 15:03 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Aren't they all in the `_Upper` namespace (namepattern?) though? C reserved that long ago (and is why C++ can't use it either; C may add names there at any time).