|Subject:||Re: [avr-gcc-list] Avr-gcc Produces Incorrect Code with -Os|
|Date:||Sun, 25 May 2008 21:59:49 +0200|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Windows/20080421)|
Graham Davies wrote:
David Brown wrote:... you are ... protecting the code sequence, not the data itself - the data is indirectly protected by always usingprotected code sequences to access it.I think this is just a point-of-view thing. I could be wrong, but I think the prevalent point of view is that it is the data that needs to be protected. Any means to do that would be acceptable. It seems strange to talk about protecting the code sequence. Making sure that the code executes in sequence and without interruption is just a means to the primary end of protecting the data.Graham.
In some cases, it makes sense to think about protecting the data - in particular, you often want to make sure that no part of the program can access the data in an inconsistent state. In that sense, you protect code sequences as a way to protect the data. But you also want sequences of code that access different data objects rather than directly protecting the data.
Ultimately, code is merely something that manipulates data, and data is merely intermediate results of code, so it is, as you say, a point-of-view thing. My point was just that it is often most practical to think in terms of protecting code sequences rather than data - you can't view all cases in terms of protecting data until you abstract to the level of all the data in the system being part of a single large object, and all the code in the system being methods manipulating that data object.
At least, that's how I view it. Perhaps if I were a C++ programmer rather than a C programmer, I'd view it in a more data-centric way.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|