If your program invokes undefined behaviour, it's invalid and non-portable. Out of bounds array accesses are UB, yet a program containing them may just happen to work. It won't be portable even between different compiler versions.
The C standard is a 2 way contract: the programmer doesn't produce code that invokes undefined behaviour, and the compiler returns a standard conforming executable
I don't feel that the Rust language situation incentivizes such awful conflict, and it's one of many reasons I now try really hard to avoid C and use Rust instead.
But I don't think defining all behavior helps. The defined behavior could be /wrong/, and now you can't find it because the program using it is valid, so it can't be detected with UBSan.
Undefined behavior is usually a result of runtime situation, it is usually not obvious from just the code whether it could or could not happen, so the compiler cannot reject the program.
The 'UB-based' optimization is just assumption that the code is correct and therefore UB-situation could not happen in runtime.
> The standards added the forward progress guarantees to change an optimization problem from "solve the halting problem" to "there will be observable side effects in the forms of termination, I/O, volatile, and/or atomic synchronization, any other operation can be reordered". The former is generally impossible to solve, whereas the latter is eminently tractable.
But yeah, that's one of the more foot-gunny UB rules that Rust does not have. But it does mean it doesn't mark functions as `mustprogress` in LLVM IR which means it misses out on whatever optimizations that enables.
You significantly underestimate how much UB people write and overestimate the end-result if the current approach would not be taken.
I don’t see any way it can do otherwise. As a simple example, what would one translate this C statement to:
int i;
…
i = abs(i);
let i: i64;
…
i = abs(i);
unsafe {
let mut i: std::os::raw::c_int
= std::mem::MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init();
// ...
i = libc::abs(i);
}
Given that generated code, I could then piecemeal migrate the unsafe bits to cleaner, idiomatic safe rust: possibly your code but more likely `i::wrapping_abs()` or similar.
What will TRACTOR choose? At least for this example, they don't have to choose inappropriate pruning of undefined behavior. They claim the following:
> The goal is to achieve the same quality and style that a skilled Rust developer would produce, thereby eliminating the entire class of memory safety security vulnerabilities present in C programs.
If they're going to uphold the same "quality", the translation you presented doesn't cut it. But you may be right and they will go down the path of claiming that a garbage translation is technically valid under undefined behavior and therefore”quality” — if so, I will shun them.
[1] https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
Because of the leeway the C standard gives you, you can preserve the semantics of the C program by just calling abs, and I think that’s the best you can do.
What the compiler does may be different for different compilers, different compiler versions or different compilation flags, so if all you have is the C source code, there’s no way to preserve the semantics of the machine code that the C compiler generates.
You could special-case all of them, but even then, there is the problem that a C compiler, even in a single translation unit, can inline one call and then apply some transformations while compiling another call to a call to a library function, making the semantics of overflow in one location different from that in another.
If you want to replicate that, I’d say you aren’t writing a C to rust translator, but a (C + assembly) to rust translator.
Also, if you go this route, you’d have to do similar gnarly stuff for all arithmetic on integers where you cannot prove there will not be overflow. I would not call the resulting code idiomatic rust.
To uphold the spirit of Rust, a C program must go through a process where assumptions are laid bare and footguns are dismantled. Applying an automatic process which arbitrarily changes the behavior from the implementation-dependent compilation of a C program just gets you a messy slop of hidden bugs collected inside an opaque, "safe" garbage can.
You don't get to Rust's reliability by applying a translation which discards it!
> Also, if you go this route, you’d have to do similar gnarly stuff for all arithmetic on integers where you cannot prove there will not be overflow.
Damn straight. That's what C is! It was always this bad, as those of us who have struggled to control it can attest. Faithful translation to unsafe Rust just makes it obvious.
It may be better to just leave the assignment off the declaration. If the variable is read before it's initialized to something, we'll get a Rust compilation error, forcing programmer intervention. Detecting actual bugs that would result in memory errors and forcing them to be resolved is very much in the spirit of Rust. TRACTOR may aspire to gift C programs with memory safety for free, but it won't always be possible.
Of course if TRACTOR can determine through static analysis that the unitialized read can't cause problems, it might emit different code.
That's the kind of language lawyer approach that caused a rebellion in the last decade amongst C programmers against irresponsible compiler optimizations. "Who cares if your program actually works as intended? My optimization is legal according to the standard, it's your program that's written to exploit loopholes".
I don't see any evidence that that's the attitude being taken by TRACTOR — I sure hope it isn't. But hell, even if the result is unreliable in practice, I suppose that if somebody gets to claim "it works" then the incentives are aligned to produce garbage.