Creator of LLVM, Clang, and Swift Says To Not Write Security Critical Code In C/C++

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:18:23 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 10:22:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> You are free to use a C/C++ compiler that provides a switch 
>> where overflow leads either to an abitrary value (Rust 
>> semantics) or the wrap around (D code gen).
>
> That's the whole point: use a language without UB and the 
> situation will be better.

My point is that C UB for overflow on signed int does not imply 
not having the same code-gen as D has. So it is essentially not a 
language problem per se.

The "problem" is cultural. C programmers have this idea that they 
should compile everything with the compiler/compiler setting that 
gives the absolutely highest performance no matter what the 
quality the code. The same thing would happen if LDC added a 
switch named "-FAST_AND_RISKY" ;-).