Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 13 May 2025 21:30:43 +0100 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 25-05-004 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="76075"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | C, Rust |
| Posted-Date: | 13 May 2025 21:16:42 EDT |
| In-Reply-To: | 25-05-004 |
All,
> Automated tools translate C to Rust but produce lousy Rust code because of
> C's loose pointer semantics. They use an LLM to improve it somewhat.
Developers could always stay with C and switch on all the
pointer+array bounds checking that GCC/LLVM have been supporting for
some years (30 in the case of gcc).
I have been trying to find out how many products written in Rust
actually ship with the checking still switched on.
Way back when, most products written in Pascal used to ship with the
checking switched off, so that customers did not see the strange
errors+program termination.
I suspect that the same is happening with Rust. If so, how does using
Rust make the code safer than using C without any checking switched
on?
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.