[rust-dev] Integer overflow, round -2147483648

Thad Guidry thadguidry at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 12:33:37 PDT 2014


I completely agree with Daniel in all points on this thread.  (he
aggressively states over and over his stance and the teams concerning the
goals of Rust. The team has not deviated from their objective of the Rust
model. Kudos.)

I do not need compiler switches nor do I want them.
I want the control defined in the code by me.
Giving me that control for wrapping on/off for a scope is the way forward.
Whatever the names end up being...

+1 for wrapping on/off for a scope.  Get 'er done.

(and thanks for keeping my memory safe)



On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/06/14 02:34 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> >
> > You haven't explained how this is going to cause security issues in
> > Rust, when the language is guaranteed to be memory safe outside of
> > `unsafe` blocks. The `unsafe` blocks are low-level, performance critical
> > code where unnecessary overflow checks are always going to be
> > acceptable, so the feature has next to no value in terms of memory
> safety.
>
> s/acceptable/unacceptable/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140624/70bdbb62/attachment.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list