Browse thread
stl?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | malc <av1474@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] stl? |
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 07:22:28AM +0100, yoann padioleau wrote: > > Qemu is written in C, because I guess indeed C struct and union > > and bitfields makes it easy to match directly to the hardware (no marshalling, > > there is direct mapping). > > I was hacking on qemu last week, and wishing it wasn't written in C. I'm genuinely curious as to what part of QEMU being not written in C would have been a net win.. > > There's not much of a technical reason why it couldn't have been > written in a higher level language. Bitfield manipulation would be > more painful unless there was a bitstring-like preprocessor added. > > The real reason to use C was to get wider development support. Qemu > also happens to be security critical (all those hacked up C device > emulations offer exploit possibilities for the guests). And it has > frequent vulnerabilities. Go figure ... I'm sorry, but i don't see how writing device emulation in OCaml would have made it automatically safer. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru