| > Not these in particular. You are again ignoring the context. What context? I just said afterwards that aliasing is not one of those cases. > Undefined behavior are bugs by themselves. Let's check if you are holding any of the wrong assumptions: Nope and your post wouldn't justify the statement. Not all UB leads to a reachable bug. The blog post doesn't say otherwise, and in fact it indicates exactly this (that UB can compile "correctly" one day and "incorrectly" the next). Check the errata on the post. > Wrong implicit premise: "all memory safety bugs resides in unsafe functions/blocks". No, I'm right other than l-unsound. Saying "but safe code that references unsafe code" doesn't change that. > It's as hard as rewriting the codebase from ground up without reference Not necessarily. At least multiple cases I've seen in the rewrite would be a matter of just moving `unsafe` from one spot to another and then placing the assertions at the caller. This conversation is increasingly dumb. I've made my point repeatedly - moving to Rust means memory unsafety violations can be grepped for and that's not up for debate. You can say that that's not sufficient as a win for the project, I really am ambivalent. |
That's untrue. It has already been maximally dumb since your first comment with the various logical fallacies you managed to carry out in a single sentence. The only reason I'm still making my replies is that you are making so many false claims that may mislead someone else.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/working-with-unsafe.html
I'm not even trying to prove any point since the beginning. Can't do that when you have a different definition of bug from others.
Please if you are going to reply to this ever again try stop making any claims. Otherwise I'm afraid that it will continue into infinity.