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++

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, and that falls under the first category, bugs in the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25860

(All exploits in that repo are possible due to that bug.)

[–] vivendi@programming.dev -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 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.