On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 09:29:03 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 07:43:27 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Uhm, no. The linked page concludes that security-oriented
software should be written in languages that trap on integer
overflow by default.
D is not better off by having modulo-arithmetics, that means
you cannot even catch overflow related issues by semantic
analysis, since overflow does not exist. There are C-like
languages that ensures that overflow is not possible at
compile time (by putting limits on loop iterations and doing
heavy duty proofs).
Correct software can't be written in C because of UB, that's
why safer languages are praised for elimination of UB.
This is 100% wrong. UB only happens in the code gen for programs
that are illegal (per definition incorrect source code).
If your program is correct, then the code cannot trigger UB.
