3 ms·
What about these ones ? They are considered memory-safety/soundness issues 'static closures/FnDefs/futures with non-'static return type are unsound https://git
by lenkite 10mo ago
What about these ones ? They are considered memory-safety/soundness issues
'static closures/FnDefs/futures with non-'static return type are unsound https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84366 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84366
Resolve unsound interaction between noalias and self-referential data (incl. generators, async fn) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63818 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63818
- aw1621107 10mo agoI think this is starting to wander rather far afield from where this thread started... But anyways, at least from a quick glance those would at the very least seem to run into codys' unintentional bug vs. intentional behavior distinction. The bugs you linked are... well... bugs that the Rust devs fully intend to fix regardless of whether any in-the-wild exploits ever arise. The Go data race issue, on the other hand, is an intentional implementation decision and the devs have not indicated any interest in fixing it so far.
- tptacek 10mo agoNeither set of issues is apposite to MemorySafety.org. The whole thing is just a dumb language war spat.