> However C++17 is quite safe, provided one doesn't follow "write C with C++ compiler" idiom.

No, it's not. There is no use-after-free protection among other things. It doesn't matter how much you write code like C or not: it's just not safe.

Then better stop using LLVM on Rust.

Until then, those comments only annoy those of us that happen to like Rust, but don't find it mature enough to replace C++ on the use cases we happen to care about.

I didn't say you can't write useful software in C++. I said that C++ software is not, in general, memory safe. Sometimes the benefits of a particular piece of software (for example, having an excellent production-grade optimizer) outweigh its drawbacks (for example, not being memory-safe).

I don't think you'd find a single LLVM developer who would claim that LLVM is memory safe. Giving invalid IR to LLVM and not running the verifier frequently segfaults it, for example...

I do agree with that, but that is exactly why I always mention the "C with C++ compiler" idiom, which is usually followed by your remark.

safety is a spectrum, I think declaring it unsafe entirely might not be conducive to more interesting points