Hacker News Reader

I have workarounds for all "simple" cases of UB in C(this is partially what the talk is about). The test code is running with `-fsantize=undefined`, and triggers no UB checks.

There are also escape hatches for strict aliasing in the C standard - mainly using memcpy for all memory operations.

> It could fail if the generated C code triggered Undefined Behavior.

> For example, signed overflow is UB in C, but defined in Rust. Generated code can't simply use the + operator.

Obviously, yes, but it could generate overflow checks.

Wait until you find out how unsafe software written in the machine language that Rust usually transpiles to is.

That's not the same, and not what pornel is talking about. The x86 ADD instruction has a well-defined behavior on overflow, and i32 + i32 in Rust will usually be translated to an ADD instruction, same as int + int in C. But a C compiler is allowed to assume that a signed addition operation will never overflow (the dreaded Undefined Behavior), while a Rust compiler must not make that assumption. This means that i32 + i32 must not be translated to int + int.

For example, a C compiler is allowed to optimize the expression a+1<a to false (if a is signed), but a Rust compiler isn't allowed to do this.