News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption. Parent comment

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".

[ Parent | on HN ]
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]