Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
by hypeatei on Thursday February 19, 2026 @10:56AM
(#47075149)
The internet didn't go down and you're mischaracterizing it as a parsing issue when the list would've exceeded memory allocation limits. They didn't hardcode a fallback config for that case. What memory safety promise did Rust fail there exactly?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
by groundzeros2015 on Thursday February 19, 2026 @10:58AM
(#47075175)
I think the point is memory bugs are only one (small) subset of bugs.
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
by Abstract_Typist on Thursday February 19, 2026 @02:37PM
(#47078113)
The conventional wisdom is ~70% of serious security bugs are memory safety issues.
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/CSAC_TAC_Re...
Re:-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
by groundzeros2015 on Thursday February 19, 2026 @04:17PM
(#47079532)
Security bugs - and not bad security processes, are a small subset of bugs.