How are they going to tackle heavy use of the C preprocessor?
What about pointer arithmetic without decorating everything with “unsafe”? As the whole point is making the code safer.
Can’t have code vulnerabilities if the code doesn’t run. *taps forehead*
What about pointer arithmetic without decorating everything with “unsafe”? As the whole point is making the code safer.
The point is to reduce the amount of work by doing the boring work automatically. Manually copying struct definitions, functions, etc etc would be very boring but error prone work which is kind of the worst combination.
If that’s done you can start improving the codebase module by module.
I guess it will translate the majority of the code which does not contain unsafe parts, and leave the pointer manipulation for manual rewrite.
Or maybe it’ll write the unsafe parts in unsafe blocks?
Then there’s no point. Converting the code to Rust as-is will also transfer all the bugs.
There is. It’s a starting point to start converting the code to safe Rust. Some obstacles are removed.
you can just wrap a whole C code into a macroyeah, preprocessor is going to blow everything, I forgot how good it is. Maybe there’s a way by preprocessing and then leaving it as the code, but that wouldn’t be as useful and configurable
Rust also has powerful macros, are you sure that those can’t mimic at least most uses of the preprocessor?
You’re right, but:
- Rust goes out of the way to make macro safer and less error-prone, which means it will not be able to cover exactly the same especially in some fringe hacky cases
- I was commenting along the lines of automatically converting one into another, I find it will either be very difficult or outright impossible without human rewriting the macro from ground up (that is, if we know what problem it solved in the very beginning, otherwise it quickly would become guessing game)
There is the project c2rust which is being used to transpile c projects to rust. I didn’t find any mentions on restrictions in this regard but I obviously agree it’s a complicated issue.
, which means it will not be able to cover exactly the same especially in some fringe hacky cases
I’m just not sure this is true. Maybe you and I just don’t see that there is always an equivalent solution in rust macros even if it’s going to be unconventional/unidiomatic use of rust macros?
Maybe you and I just don’t see that there is always an equivalent solution in rust macros even if it’s going to be unconventional/unidiomatic use
Maybe so, but large part of where it will be impossible is reproducing bugs introduced by unsanitized macros in C /half joking
Can’t spell CVE without C 😉
No wonder security aware environments want to get rid of the language. It’s a mess and a half (can’t forget the buffer overflow).
However the suggestion of using AI kinda voids the proposal and erodes credibility.
Can’t spell CVE without C. It’s a mess and a half (can’t forget the buffer overflow).
I’m saving these, folks are gonna love them lmao.
