I think the answer is yes. There's a complementary project [1] that aims to enforce a slightly more restricted memory safe subset of C++ than the lifetime profi

I think the answer is yes. There's a complementary project [1] that aims to enforce a slightly more restricted memory safe subset of C++ than the lifetime profile checker does (or eventually will). The restrictions do not manifest as limitations on the code, but rather as extra run-time checks in some scenarios. The C++ language maps one-to-one to the safe subset, so auto-conversion of (reasonable) existing C++ code to the safe subset should be a straightforward (if tedious) undertaking. The issue will be the performance of the converted code, which will depend on how pointers/references are used in the original code. Pointers that are expected to never point to (in addition to never dereference to) a destroyed object can be converted to "safe" pointers with little run-time overhead [2]. Otherwise the pointer would need to converted to one with more overhead [3]. Pointers that can be verified (by the static analyzer) to conform to "scope lifetime" rules (akin to Rust) can remain zero-overhead pointers. New code written in the safe subset would generally have performance in the ballpark of traditional C++ [4]. [1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/scpptool https://github.com/duneroadrunner/scpptool [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#norad-pointers https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#norad-point... [3] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#registered-pointers https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#registered-... [4] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-BenchmarksGame https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-BenchmarksG... (note that the benchmark code is quite old and will be updated soon)