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

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:59:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> 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.

UB implies anything. Yes, it's not a problem, safer languages 
based on C are possible, and were done.

> 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.

It's believed that there's no problem with optimized code and 
optimizations don't change behavior.

> The same thing would happen if LDC added a switch named 
> "-FAST_AND_RISKY" ;-).

I proposed -Ounsafe, it can actually help with correctness, 
because it clearly states the tradeoff and keeps it opt-in 
instead of being default, as C compilers do, and it also fits 
well into D approach to unsafety.