It's not nonsense. It's really not difficult to structure code for 100% coverage of unsafe code if you're thinking about it from the start. You're also perfect

It's not nonsense. It's really not difficult to structure code for 100% coverage of unsafe code if you're thinking about it from the start. You're also perfectly fine to write code that is free of `unsafe`, freeing you from this onerous task. We're pulling out Miri _because_ we're going outside the normal guardrails. You also don't _need_ to get 100% coverage of all your unsafe code if you can be confident of the usage of unsafe. The most complex unsafe code should almost certainly be covered, but there are a lot of trivial uses of unsafe that can be shown to be correct through reasoning. Where possible I prefer to split code into safe and unsafe portions, and test the unsafe portions under Miri with as much coverage as gives me confidence in the code. I've made UB mistakes before with unsafe, but since adding Miri and code coverage, the numbers of mistakes I've made has dropped dramatically. No programmer is perfect, but one would be pretty foolish to ignore the tools at one's disposal.