prusti-dev
gcc
Our great sponsors
prusti-dev | gcc | |
---|---|---|
23 | 81 | |
1,446 | 8,635 | |
2.5% | 2.3% | |
8.8 | 9.9 | |
23 days ago | about 17 hours ago | |
Rust | C | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
prusti-dev
-
Using_Prolog_as_the_AST
> The overall goal would be to figure out classical error conditions like nill pointers deference.
> If I can figure out if a pointer will be nil in some execution branch, there is no reason why a computer cannot do the same.
Note, this is called flow-sensitive typing (also called type narrowing) and I think that typescript does it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-sensitive_typing
> I personally would see this as an human race level upgrades. Imagine feeding your code to a CI that spit back something like: "you will have a panic at line 156 when your input is > 4"
A model checker can do that!
See this
https://model-checking.github.io/kani/tutorial-kinds-of-fail...
Other techniques are also possible
https://github.com/viperproject/prusti-dev#quick-example
(Here I could link a lot of things, I just selected two Rust projects to illustrate)
This works better if you are able to provide contracts in your API that says which guarantees you provide. Alternatively, asserts are useful too.
-
Programming Languages Going Above and Beyond
You might be interested in the Prusti project, which statically checks for absence of reachable panics, overflows etc. It also allows user-defined specifications such as pre and post-conditions, loop body invariants, termination checking and so on.
-
Trying to find a crate that allows you to constrain the value of arguments in various ways via a proc macro
This is called refinement types and prusti might be the project you saw.
-
rustc-plugin: A framework for writing plugins that integrate with the Rust compiler
But there's also a lot of exciting work around formal verification like Prusti.
-
Is there something like "super-safe" rust?
prusti
-
A plan for cybersecurity and grid safety
Efforts: seL4, Project Everest, the Prossimo project of the ISRG, Let's Encrypt, and Prusti for the Rust language
-
Prop v0.42 released! Don't panic! The answer is... support for dependent types :)
Wow that sounds really cool! I'm not an expert but does that mean that one day you could implement dependend types or refinement types in Rust as a crate ? I currently only know of tools like: Flux Creusot Kani Prusti
-
Prusti: Static Analyzer for Rust
And have it checked at compile time that the assertion holds! Which is a bit like Liquid Haskell in capability: https://ucsd-progsys.github.io/liquidhaskell/
... and now I just noticed that prusti has a crate prusti_contracts that can do the same thing!! https://github.com/viperproject/prusti-dev/blob/master/prust...
Now I'm wondering which tool is more capable (as I understand, they leverage a SMT solver like Z3 to discharge the proof obligations, right?)
-
Six programming languages I’d like to see
For contract-based programming, I'm personally planning on experimenting with https://github.com/viperproject/prusti-dev
The withdraw example would look something like
impl Account {
gcc
-
C++ Safety, in Context
> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.
Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.
Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...
So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?
> Take for example CVE-2022-21658 (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/01/20/cve-2022-21658.html) in Rust, related to a filesystem API. It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all.
That just plain wrong. Just simply wrong. And I hope it is not a lie done on purpose.
The C++ community acknowledge the issue as soon as the Rust one posted the problem and issued a fix which is already deployed with major compilers [^1] [^2]
It does not have a CVE associated since the issue was spotted within Rust stdlib first.
This is this exact kind of FUD and zealotism that makes people hate the Rust community. I wish the community mature a bit on this aspect.
[^1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...
[^2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...
- Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))
-
Converting the Kernel to C++
Somewhat related: In 2020 gcc bumped the requirement for bootstrapping to be a C++11 compiler [0]. Would have been fun to see the kernel finally adopt C++14 as the author suggested.
I don't think that Linus will allow this since he just commented that he will allow rust in drivers and major subsystems [1].
I do found it pretty funny that even Linus is also not writing any rust code, but is reading rust code.
I would have hoped see more answers or see something in here from actual kernel developers.
0: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/5329b59a2e13dabbe20...
-
Understanding Objective-C by transpiling it to C++
> They’re saying that a lot of the restrictions makes things much harder than other languages. Hence the general problem rust has where a lot of trivial tasks in other languages are extremely challenging.
Like what? So far the discussion has revolved around rewriting a linked list, which people generally shouldn't ever need to do because it's included in the standard lib for most languages. And it's a decidedly nontrivial task to do as well as the standard lib when you don't sacrifice runtime overhead to be able to handwave object lifecycle management.
- C++: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-...
- Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/src/alloc/collections/linked_...
> No need to get defensive, no one is arguing that rust doesn’t do a lot of things well.
That's literally what bsaul is arguing in another comment. :)
> You’re talking up getting a safe implementation in C, but what matters is “can I get the same level of safety with less complexity in any language”, and the answer is yes: Java and c# implementations of a thread safe linked list are trivial.
Less perceived complexity. In Java and C# you're delegating the responsibility of lifecycle management to garbage collectors. For small to medium scale web apps, the added complexity will be under the hood and you won't have to worry about it. For extreme use cases, the behavior and overhead of the garbage collector does became relevant.
If you factor in the code for the garbage collector that Java and C# depend on, the code complexity will tilt dramatically in favor of C++ or Rust.
However, it's going to be non-idiomatic to rewrite a garbage collector in Java or C# like it is to rewrite a linked list in Rust. If we consider the languages as they're actually used, rather than an academic scenario which mostly crops up when people expect the language to behave like C or Java, the comparison is a lot more favorable than you're framing it as.
> If I wanted I could do it in c++ though the complexity would be more than c# and Java it would be easier than rust.
You can certainly write a thread-safe linked list in C++, but then the enforcement of any assumptions you made about using it will be a manual burden on the user. This isn't just a design problem you can solve with more code - C++ is incapable of expressing the same restrictions as Rust, because doing so would break compatibility with C++ code and the language constructs needed to do so don't exist.
So it's somewhat apples and oranges here. Yes, you may have provided your team with a linked list, but it will either
-
Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
GCC is also written in C++, and has had C++ deps since 2013:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-parser...
- Spitbol 360: an implementation of SNOBOL4 for IBM 360 compatible computers
- Learn to write production quality STL like classes
-
My favorite C compiler flags during development
For a more detailed explanation, see [2]. (Also the inspiration for the above example,)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
[2] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/50ddbd0282e06614b29...
-
What are does the hobbyist programmer miss comparing the paid versus free Ada ecosystem?
This is why, when considering whether to build & release a nn.2.0 macOS version, I’ll only do so if there’s a good reason: for example, GCC 12.1.0 couldn’t compile C source on macOS Ventura (version 13).
What are some alternatives?
CMake - Mirror of CMake upstream repository
rtl8192eu-linux-driver - Drivers for the rtl8192eu chipset for wireless adapters (D-Link DWA-131 rev E1 included!)
llvm-project - The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies.
STL - MSVC's implementation of the C++ Standard Library.
MIRAI - Rust mid-level IR Abstract Interpreter
kani - Kani Rust Verifier
cobol-on-wheelchair - Micro web-framework for COBOL
Rudra - Rust Memory Safety & Undefined Behavior Detection
qemu
python-imphook - Simple and clear import hooks for Python - import anything as if it were a Python module
busybox - The Swiss Army Knife of Embedded Linux - private tree
rtl8192eu-linux - Realtek rtl8192eu official Linux driver, versions: 5.2.19.1 (master), 5.6.3.1, 5.6.4 and 5.11.2.1 (default)