I don’t think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type “is a bug nobody sees coming”.

C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.

That’s why I love C++

  • vivendi@programming.devEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    Have you heard about cve-rs?

    https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

    Blazingly fast memory failures with no unsafe blocks in pure Rust.

    Edit: also I wish whoever designed the syntax for rust to burn in hell for eternity

    Edit 2: Before the Cult of Rust™ sends their assassins to take out my family, I am not hating on Rust (except the syntax) and I’m not a C absolutist, I am just telling you to be aware of the limitations of your tools

      • vivendi@programming.devEnglish
        12·
        2 days ago

        Yeah and those are the ones currently identified (btw that issue isn’t completely fixed) because rust never was nor advertised itself as sound. Meaning, you gotta be careful when writing Rust code too. Not as much as C++, but it’s not a magical shield against memory problems like people have been shilling it as.

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          31·
          2 days ago

          I guess what you mean is that Rust doesn’t advertise the compiler as being bug-free?

          The massive difference here is that C++ has no soundness guarantees even when the compiler is working as intended, whereas Rust actually does in fact give soundness guarantees in the absence of compiler bugs.

      • vivendi@programming.devEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        A) Rust doesn’t have a formal specification other than “whatever the fuck our team hallucinated in this compiler version”

        B) Doesn’t matter the definition if it fucks your day because you’re not careful.

        Sure sure Heil Rust but be mindful of the fuck you’re doing before you get bit ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          3·
          2 days ago

          Rust doesn’t have a formal specification other than “whatever the fuck our team hallucinated in this compiler version”

          That’s simply not true. The Reference, while not an ISO-style formal spec, does actually specify most of the intended language behavior, and incrementally approaches completion over time. But even if you insist on an ISO-style formal spec, there’s Ferrocene: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/the-ferrocene-language-specification-is-here/

          it fucks your day because you’re not careful

          The cve-rs vulnerability is actually not really something you’d ever write by accident. Also note that the bug report has multiple versions because, even though a “full” solution is pending some deeper compiler changes, the first two three versions of the exploit are now caught by the compiler. So, like I said, the compiler bugs do get fixed over time.