Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.compilers > #3648

Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust

Path csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com>
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust
Date Tue, 13 May 2025 21:30:43 +0100
Organization Compilers Central
Sender johnl%iecc.com
Approved comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID <25-05-005@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References <25-05-004@comp.compilers>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Injection-Info gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="76075"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords C, Rust
Posted-Date 13 May 2025 21:16:42 EDT
X-submission-address compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives http://compilers.iecc.com
In-Reply-To <25-05-004@comp.compilers>
Xref csiph.com comp.compilers:3648

Show key headers only | View raw

All,

> Automated tools translate C to Rust but produce lousy Rust code because of
> C's loose pointer semantics.  They use an LLM to improve it somewhat.

Developers could always stay with C and switch on all the
pointer+array bounds checking that GCC/LLVM have been supporting for
some years (30 in the case of gcc).

I have been trying to find out how many products written in Rust
actually ship with the checking still switched on.

Way back when, most products written in Pascal used to ship with the
checking switched off, so that customers did not see the strange
errors+program termination.

I suspect that the same is happening with Rust. If so, how does using
Rust make the code safer than using C without any checking switched
on?

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-05-09 12:27 -0400
  Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> - 2025-05-13 21:30 +0100
    Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust arnold@freefriends.org - 2025-05-14 08:21 +0000
      Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 20:01 +0000
        Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at - 2025-05-15 07:48 +0000
      Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-15 11:52 -0400
      Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net - 2025-05-16 15:42 +0000
        Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-16 17:57 +0000

csiph-web