3 ms·
> This is not undefined behavior, as has been said multiple times in this thread; please stop repeating this lie. I wrote: "and there are undefined behaviors,
by Annatar 11y ago
> This is not undefined behavior, as has been said multiple times in this thread; please stop repeating this lie.
I wrote: "and there are undefined behaviors, or in this case such bugs". "Whoever can read is clearly at an advantage".
> No, their comment said "inflammatory/unnuanced/ill-informed criticism". Which yours is.
I'll tell you what: if I had deployed Rust in production and I ran into crap like the article described, I'd be really pissed.
- Manishearth 11y agoThis "crap" is a stack overflow. The "correct" way of handling this crap is to terminate the process on a stack overflow (Rust does this for most stack overflows anyway). The current incorrect way causes a segfault instead, which also terminates the process -- not much of a difference for a production user; it crashes either way. This can lead to bad memory reads if you try really hard to write code that leads to it, and that too it will happen a small fraction of the time -- all the other times it will segfault-crash (and would be caught in testing or in deployment without being exploited).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]