3 ms·
adrian_b's comments in this thread are the kind of thing I referred to (my point wasn't that ASan specifically is presented as a panacea but rather various sani
by yosefk 2y ago
adrian_b's comments in this thread are the kind of thing I referred to (my point wasn't that ASan specifically is presented as a panacea but rather various sanitizers in general.)
- searealist 2y agoAdrian's comments are nuanced and truthful. He said gcc offers an out-of-bounds sanitizer and listed some limitations. He does not say it makes C++ memory safe.
- nneonneo 2y agoThere’s nothing remotely nuanced nor truthful about this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40696242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40696242 He’s saying that with a compiler flag you can get the same kind of safety as in Ada or Rust. Later downthread he clarifies to say that you only get this safety if you stop using pointers, which he considers “trivial” to do. This is the same guy who commented a few months back saying the following: “All decent C compilers have compilation options so that at run-time any undefined actions, including integer overflow and out-of-bounds accesses, will be trapped.” There is, put simply, no flag that will trap on “any undefined actions”, period. That’s not what sanitizers are capable of. That’s the kind of overhyped comment that isn’t helpful when trying to understand what sanitizers are actually useful for.
- yosefk 2y agoThank you for your truthful and not unnecessarily nuanced comment!