undefined

points

[-]

Certainly there's a UB free C subset ... everything specified by the C Standard or designated as implementation-defined is UB free by definition.

UB in C potentially destroys the universe so C programmers do their best to avoid it. A backend that generates C code is a lot more easily constrained than arbitrary manual code. While it's conceivable that a C backend could produce UB code, it would be a severe bug and isn't likely. It most certainly isn't "by definition" ... that suggests some serious conceptual error.

by weinzierl13 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I guess my question is if you can trigger UB in regular Goose and if you can, would it be considered a bug. I realize that this doesn't necessarily have a simple yes or no answer but I still think it'd help to know if Goose is more on the C++ side or the Rust side.

The complete omission of UB in the README could be one of two things. Either that the topic is not important or that it is considered a given and not worth mentioning.

by vanderZwan13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Hmm, well the benchmarks always use an explicit "faster than idiomatic C/C++ and safe Rust". Similarly it also notes that in theory you could write equally fast C/C++ (since Goose compiles to C), but it would be an unreadable, unsafe mess.

Note also the fact that e.g. array indexing has bounds checks without escape hatches for the programmer, but the compiler can elide quite a few of them, and the language has tools to help the programmer write code that is guaranteed to be check-free.

I think that suggests the ambition is to compete with Rust in the domain of combining safety with not compromising on performance.

by jibalt4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Goose has no undefined behavior.