4 ms·
This also papers over a potential defect, but also introduces a potentially semantic-breaking process into your compilation pipe. Say you've proved memory safe
by fdupress 6y ago
This also papers over a potential defect, but also introduces a potentially semantic-breaking process into your compilation pipe.
Say you've proved memory safety on your source. What you're compiling is no longer that source you have a proof about.
- guenthert 6y ago> This also papers over a potential defect That's what suppressing warnings tend to do, yes. > but also introduces a potentially semantic-breaking process into your compilation pipe. Only if the beautifier is broken. > What you're compiling is no longer that source you have a proof about. It sure is, again, unless the beautifier is broken.
- fdupress 6y agoSo it turns out Materialistic doesn't even show responses to my comments unless I go back to the thread itself... The point I was making was in context of a discussion focused on mission-critical system. In that context, you can't just add a beautifier to your compilation pipeline with the argument that "the only way things will go wrong is if the beautifier is broken".