August 10th, 2004, 09:28 PM
differences between "cc" & "gcc"
From what I understand the "Unix C Compiler" aka cc is the industry standard & more secure then "GNU C Compiler" aka gcc. What are your thoughts on this? Aparently gcc has a lot of extra extensions. True??? Are they secure? I also heard that the gcc can be made to behave like cc. Is it more secure then cc in this mode.
Anyway.... which one is the way to go??
\"Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding...\"
August 11th, 2004, 02:07 AM
Differences in compilers? File extensions? Which one is more 'secure' ? Unless your compiler puts a gun to someone's head then forces it's users to perform secure codeing practices... or if a compiler performs array bounds checking and the other one does not Hummm... but anyways, in any case what I'd really like to know is how does file extensions in any way involve secure codeing practices?
August 14th, 2004, 04:31 AM
Re: differences between "cc" & "gcc"
Of course GCC has a lot of extra extensions, it stands for GNU Compiler Collection (not GNU C Compiler).
From what I understand the "Unix C Compiler" aka cc is the industry standard & more secure then "GNU C Compiler" aka gcc. What are your thoughts on this? Aparently gcc has a lot of extra extensions. True???
You should know where you can find find the above quote.
GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection, which currently contains front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). Further frontends are available.
Always listen to experts. They\'ll tell you what can\'t be done and why. Then go and do it. -- Robert Heinlein
I\'m basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do. -- Linus Torvalds
August 15th, 2004, 07:15 PM
is there also a built in C++ compiler?
August 18th, 2004, 09:55 PM
File extensions can be involved in secure coding practices, tho it also touches on server configuration....when dealing with web applications. If you are doing say....an asp 3.0 site utilizing vbscript as your server side scripting language and make include files for utility functions. If you use a .inc file extension as an include, the server generally does not process the script and sends out the code to whoever requested it (unless your configure your server appropriately). However if you change that .inc to .asp, there is no further configuration, your code does not get sent out to the end user, and you have better security.
As far as cc vs gcc and which is more secure, I've never looked into it. You will get more security via proper architecting of the application and good analysis and design than you will by your compiler. Some compilers come with various tools or libraries to try and stop an assortment of problems such as checking for possible buffer overflow problems, clobbering memory in other ways that you shouldn't, bad coding practices, etc. Most of the time however these are external tools or third party tools that simply aid the compiler itself.
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." - Erasmus
"There is no programming language, no matter how structured, that will prevent programmers from writing bad programs." - L. Flon
"Mischief my ass, you are an unethical moron." - chsh
Blog of X
August 18th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Yes, but of course I have installed RedHat.
Originally posted here by nirvanist6
is there also a built in C++ compiler?