Re:My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup’s Recent Memory Safety Comm...
by voxelghost on Thursday February 02, 2023 @09:39PM
(#34636473)
I know there is no unsafe keyword, but I was suggesting one should be added.
I have decades-long experience with C++, but not all people do, and all people ,even experienced developers make mistakes or get lazy and take the easy way out from time to time.
I think one lesson C++ could take from rust, if nothing else, is that clearly demarking unsafe code sections is beneficial in and of itself.
If Strostrup makes the claim that developers using old C features is the main security problem of modern C++ , then an unsafe keyword would guide behavior towards safe usage.
#No "old unsafe C" here
UNSAFE{
#Full C++, including "old unsafe C" here
...
}
#No "old unsafe C" here
>c++ / treat code as "New Safe C++ only", except for UNSAFE sections
>c++ --no-unsafe / treat all code as "New safe C++ only" UNSAFE not allowed
>c++ --allow-unsafe / current behavior, allow all C++ including "old unsafe C" in all sections
Re:My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup’s Recent Memory Safety Comm...
by pjmlp on Friday February 03, 2023 @04:13AM
(#34638995)
Microsoft is thinking down those lines given, see their "-memory-safe C++" talk at CppCon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml4t-6bg9-M
However, this is only one compiler, not ISO C++.
Re:My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup’s Recent Memory Safety Comm...
by thecodedmessage on Friday February 03, 2023 @05:51PM
(#34648942)
You can still have rogue references to deleted objects in such a situation, or invalidated iterators, or plenty of other undefined behaviors even using just modern C++ features.
Knowing some Rust and how it works, then going back to C++ can help you recognize where to use safer idioms and what's potentially dangerous.