Compilers

[ljknews at mac.com (ljknews)]

At 10:30 AM -0500 12/21/06, McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) wrote:
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>       boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C72514.FE7A042C"
>
> I have been noodling the problem space of secure coding after attending a
> wonderful class taught by Ken Van Wyk. I have been casually checking out
> Fortify, Ounce Labs, etc and have a thought that this stuff should really
> be part of the compiler and not a standalone product. Understanding that
> folks do start companies to make up deficiencies in what large vendors
> ignore, how far off base in my thinking am I?

Isn't the whole basis of Spark a matter of adding proof statements in
the comments ?  I don't think the general compiler marketplace would
go for that built-in to compilers.  After all:

        1. The Praxis implementation can be used with multiple compilers

        2. The compiler market is so immature that some people are still
           using C, C++ and Java.

But for the high-integrity market, Spark seems to fit the bill.
-- 
Larry Kilgallen