Re: Arbitrary Sandbox

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:

> Right. I did not mean to be critical of Burroughs; it is one example of
> dividing checks between SW and HW.

I've never used a Burroughs machine, but it seems to me that a design
that requires compilers to run in a privileged mode is just wrong.
A goal is to avoid having too much code in privileged mode, and
compilers are complicated beasts.

I talked to some folks who wrote a compiler (I don't remember which
language, might have been Ada) for one of those machines, and they said
it was a nightmare, because when there's a bug, instead of the compiler
crashing, or the compiler-generated program crashing, the entire system
would crash.  This was a multi-user system, so one minor mistake by one
member of the compiler team disrupts the work of the whole team.

> Yes. The ideal is that all illegalities are detected at some level. But
> today, in Ada and other languages, we have cases of erroneous execution,
> undefined behaviour, and so on, that are not detected at all, and simply
> lead to wrong results or weird crashes. I wish that hardware could
> detect more of them.

I wish software would detect more of them.  ;-)

- Bob