Congrats to Ralf! (thankfully "only" a stray annotation that lets users compile some incorrect programs)https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/873338473381601281 …
Isn't it, at the end, saying that Rust isn't actually a memory-safe language & that this is evidence of that larger problem? Looks like it.
-
-
This is no different from a compiler bug in a safe language. Such is the life of lacking formal verification

-
I don't understand. The wrong automatic derivation of `Sync` is a language (mis)feature, not an extension of the language by rustc, right?
-
Ah sure I suppose. The general justification is it's still impossible to break mem-safety without writing unsafe.
-
That is, you can't have a bad send/sync impl without building the type on unsafe code. Mutex's used unsafe but didn't properly audit sync.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.