[jasode]

>If safe Rust code does not invoke any of the UB corners of LLVM then Rust can claim to be free from UB.

Sure and I believe that adding a conditional qualification such as "if one does not invoke UB of LLVM" restates my point: one can't make a universal statement that "safe Rust has zero undefined behavior."

E.g., as of this writing, the following "safe Rust" UB issue (3+ years ago) last had comments 21 days ago and I believe it's still open:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/10184

[MichaelBurge]

If somebody asks you what "cat" does, do you say "It copies its input to its output, unless there's a bug in cat or the C compiler that compiled it or cosmic rays hit the program on disk"?

[jasode]

>If somebody asks you what "cat" does,

Yes I get what you're saying but I'll try to emphasize again that I'm not trying to play semantic games to irritate everyone. (Yes, we can play word games such as "a tank is an armored military vehicle -- unless it is just a cardboard facade to fool Germans that the Allies are invading a different a part of France's coastline or acting as a movie prop for special effects work.") Every "thing" can be defined with endless cumbersome qualifiers that nobody actually says in real life.

That said, I felt the context in this thread warranted a different threshold to qualify Rust's UB because one example of John Regehr 200 UB bullet points is:

  - Demotion of one real floating type to another produces a value outside the range that can be represented (6.3.1.5).

The Rust UB github issue is not exactly the same cast but similar in spirit. Therefore, justinpombrio's comment that "Besides unsafe blocks, Rust has no undefined behavior," doesn't look accurate to me in the context of this UB thread rather than just casual speech about Rust. I can't read the mind of the poster asking the question (chrisdew) to know exactly what his scope of "UB" included but I think the reality of unintentional UB in Rust is relevant in this particular conversation.

[staticassertion]

I agree. This comes up a lot when discussion C/C++ - is it the compiler's fault, the developers, etc? The reality is it's irrelevant. Rust-the-language is safe but no one uses rust-the-language they use rustc. The end result is that it is possible to have memory unsafe rust code without unsafe blocks.

Rust developers should be aware of this - they're almost always incredibly trivial patterns to avoid, but only if you know about them.

[ivanbakel]

>a conditional qualification such as "if one does not invoke UB of LLVM"

A conditional qualification which is intended to be unconditionally true of safe Rust code, outside bugs in the compiler. The universal statement is totally possible, because your conditional is equivalent to saying "if you write valid code".

[jasode]

>which is _intended_ to be unconditionally true of safe Rust code,

I emphasized "intended" because it seems like we're talking past each other.

You: re-emphasizing Rust's specified design goal.

Me: emphasizing the current state of Rust compiler as reality which makes the statement "safe Rust has no undefined behavior" as not true.

(In other words, I emphasize the unintentional UB whereas you do not.)

>, because your conditional is equivalent to saying "if you write valid code".

If you look at the github issue, "1.04E+17 as u8" is valid safe Rust code which invokes UB.