3 ms·
That would completely resolve my concern about cxx. (i still think its a soundness bug in Rust that `extern { }` does not require unsafe since one can use it t
by fluffything 6y ago
That would completely resolve my concern about cxx.
(i still think its a soundness bug in Rust that `extern { }` does not require unsafe since one can use it to trigger UB in safe Rust code)
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoWhat's your thoughts on #[no_mangle]? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28179 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28179 Frankly Rust values being a usable language too much to be 100% sound.
- Jweb_Guru 6y agoI don't understand why you and others think that bringing up existing and irritating soundness holes in Rust is an argument for introducing new ones. Whether or not you think CXX exposes a sound API, it's a bad argument. This one is literally a bug that we can hopefully fix at some point, just like the floating point casts one was finally fixed.
- fluffything 6y ago#[no_mangle], like many other Rust features, is unsound; that's a fact and not an opinion, there is a bug in the tracker open for it and labelled I-unsound (accepted as an unsound bug). It is a low priority issue, but will be fixed eventually. > Frankly Rust values being a usable language too much to be 100% sound. Rust has a really good track record of identifying, prioritizing, and fixing soundness bugs (e.g. it took 4 years of work to fix one floating-point soundness bug!). Many people continuously work on this at the academic, toolchain, and backend (llvm, crane lift) levels. There is also a lot of people continuously working on making sure that new language features like async/await, const generics, specialization, GATs, ... are sound. TBH i'm surprised to learn that not all Rust core members consider soundness to be a Rust core value. Maybe it isn't a Rust core value? (it is for me; without it, Rust makes no sense as a language to me)