Re:A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption
by staticassertion on Thursday March 15, 2018 @07:02PM
(#16597244)
I suppose that's true, yes. My point was more that your compiler is not hitting a line of code and saying "I know this is or is not UB" because it can not do that in the general case - it is definitely incorrect to say it is 'proving' this. Would you consider that an accurate representation?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption
by masklinn on Friday March 16, 2018 @08:14AM
(#16600079)
> My point was more that your compiler is not hitting a line of code and saying "I know this is or is not UB" because it can not do that in the general case
I think it's still a (cause of) misunderstanding. For the compiler, UBs are situations which axiomatically can not occur. "This is UB" is not a concept, because the compiler assumes at all point that UBs can not occur.
The compiler doesn't go "oh you're dereferencing a pointer which may be null, fuck you", it goes "you're dereferencing a pointer so it can't be null, and thus I can remove anything assuming possible nullability".
Re:A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption
by staticassertion on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:25PM
(#16601699)
> The compiler doesn't go "oh you're dereferencing a pointer which may be null, fuck you", it goes "you're dereferencing a pointer so it can't be null, and thus I can remove anything assuming possible nullability".
:) This is what I'm trying to say.