Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: arnold@freefriends.org
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 08:21:51 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
Sender: johnl%iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <25-05-006@comp.compilers>
References: <25-05-004@comp.compilers> <25-05-005@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="90205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: Rust
Posted-Date: 14 May 2025 14:13:00 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3649

In article <25-05-005@comp.compilers>,
Derek  <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> wrote:
>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?

Rust catches many problems at compile time.  I am not at all a Rust
expert, or even a novice, but I don't think Rust does runtime
bounds checking, since it relies on compiler analysis instead.