News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What Is Rust's Unsafe? (2019) by zozbot234 on Sunday April 10, 2022 @08:50PM (#30983335)
> Eh. You can write, and people have written, formal proofs about C code too.

Not without a formal model of C, and the C standard is only an informal, natural-language text. Rust having memory safety as its express goal (which is basically table stakes for any sort of workable language semantics) means that it's at least realistic to think about a formal semantics for Safe Rust. Then you "just" need to deal with the uncomfortable reality that lots of Safe Rust facilities actually bottom out into Unsafe Rust, which is why it turns out you must care about its semantics too. But the hope is ultimately that the small portion of real-world Rust codebases that's Unsafe Rust might not "infect" the Safe Rust to the point of making verification as practically unworkable as in C.

Re:What Is Rust's Unsafe? (2019) by nullc on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:34AM (#30984716)
There are formalization of C, e.g. compcert, which also compiles to machine code in a way that should guarantee proofs all the way though execution (assuming the machine modeling is correct).

It seems like it is a long way off from being possible to do that for rust.