|
|
|
|
|
|
by torrent
1857 days ago
|
|
|
having segfault is the best you can have: it tells you explicitly that something is wrong with your program. in other languages the same kind of error may result in stale data and the GC does not collect the data and the memory consumption grows slowly. You will notice the problem much later. Np language can solve the inability of writing a correct program. Do you believe if your Rust program compiles it is free of errors?? |
|
|
If you get one.
In Rust if I overrun the bounds of an array I will get a panic. It is deterministic and specified, and the stacktrace will tell me which array I overran.
In C/C++ I get no such guarantees - the behaviour is explicitly undefined. If you are LUCKY you'll get a segfault there and then. For one off the end of an array that's unlikely, particularly if it's on the stack. You're much more likely to silently corrupt some data. The program will probably eventually segfault out, but there's no guarantee it's anywhere near the cause, and it could have done anything in the meantime. If you're on embedded it's even worse - no segfaults there at all.
No, if my Rust program compiles it is not necessarily free from errors. It is almost certainly free from memory errors though. Memory errors are problematic, hard to debug and the largest cause of security holes.