Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Paper: PR2: Peephole Raw Pointer Rewriting with LLMs for Translating C to Safer Rust Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:52:16 -0400 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <25-05-009@comp.compilers> References: <25-05-004@comp.compilers> <25-05-005@comp.compilers> <25-05-006@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="72570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: Rust Posted-Date: 15 May 2025 20:50:44 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:3652 On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:21:51 +0000, arnold@freefriends.org wrote: >In article <25-05-005@comp.compilers>, >Derek 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. Debug builds in Rust may do considerable runtime checking depending on what the code is trying to do. There is a small amount of checking done even in release builds. There are always some things that can't be checked at compile time.