<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Gcc on Martin&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://mac.sploit.dk/tags/gcc/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Gcc on Martin&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://mac.sploit.dk/tags/gcc/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Experiments modernising old C code</title>
      <link>https://mac.sploit.dk/blog/experiments-modernising-old-c-code/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://mac.sploit.dk/blog/experiments-modernising-old-c-code/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I wanted to see what modern compilers make of old C code: how much louder they&#xA;get, what they flag, and how much work it is to clean up under a stricter,&#xA;security-conscious flag set. The experiment also doubles as a test of AI coding&#xA;agents on legacy modernisation. Two approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fix in place. Turn on strict warnings, have the agent resolve them. The&#xA;cleanup tends to surface latent security bugs, undefined behaviour, and&#xA;portability problems as a side effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rewrite from scratch. Keep the original as reference, have the agent&#xA;reimplement in modern C17, validate with tests.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rewriting straight into Rust or Go would be its own experiment. Here the focus&#xA;is C-to-C: how well do current models produce clean, modern C while preserving&#xA;the behaviour of a 20-year-old codebase.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
