nested functions [was Re: valgrind]

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> I found an interesting article about why they're bad...
>> https://thephd.dev/lambdas-nested-functions-block-expressions-oh-my
> That's a good argument for why GCC's implementation of nested functions is b$

What security blunder is that?  Based on your next line, I'm going to
assume it's "implementing them via stack trampolines".  (I would have
to go to a work machine to tell, because thephd.dev has apparently
drunk the "it's good to ram HTTPS down everyone's throat" koolaid.
Even the stack trampoline mechanism, I would say, is not a security
blunder per se; I see it as a security issue only in that it
exacerbates the effects of certain other security issues.  Also don't
forget that early gcc arose in a very different environment from
today's.)

> I don't believe ALGOL implementations needed executable stacks to implement $

Neither would gcc...IF it can set the ABI.  There really was very
little choice for gcc when it started.  It had to be ABI-compatible
with existing procedure calling sequences.  It also had to be
compatible with existing longjmps. That eliminates pretty close to
everything _but_ stack trampolines.

Other ways of doing nested functions is one of the things I want to
experiment with.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B