News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Unsafe Rust: An Intro and Open Questions by Jweb_Guru on Thursday May 28, 2015 @06:29PM (#9621591)
> It's a good candidate for formal proof of correctness - not too big, and critical to system operation.

Unfortunately, having actually looked for production strength proofs of correctness for production allocators (as opposed to toys), I wasn't able to find any. Given how high-value of a target they are for formal verification, we may be underestimating the complexity of doing so.

Re:Unsafe Rust: An Intro and Open Questions by Animats on Thursday May 28, 2015 @10:59PM (#9622451)
Successes have been claimed.[1]

It's discouraging to me how little progress there's been in proof of correctness in the last 35 years. I used to work on that stuff. C set the field back by decades.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=yvJqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA364&lpg=...

Re:Unsafe Rust: An Intro and Open Questions by Jweb_Guru on Friday May 29, 2015 @12:21AM (#9622633)
That was one of the "toy" implementations I mentioned. The algorithm they described is going to be nowhere near the performance of a modern multithreaded allocator like jemalloc (which is correspondingly far more complex). Which is not to say things like that are not encouraging, only that I was hoping someone would have proven something people actually use correct.