[Not really OT] Crowdstrike Analysis: It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

[Dukc]

Paolo Invernizzi kirjoitti 29.7.2024 klo 11.13:
> 
> There's no two semantic meaning of @trusted, there's only one: the 
> interface MUST be safe.

That's what the standard says. Therefore, I agree that's what it means 
by default.

On the other hand bit of technical safewashing may the best way to go in 
exceptional cases. Say, maybe the function was earlier thought as safe 
but later on proved to have an unsafe corner case, and it was 
inpractical to remove `@trusted` right away because the function is so 
widely used. I would not outright ban a false `@trusted` in such cases, 
provided that it's clearly documented as such.

That is, if you're reading undocumented code and see a function with 
`@trusted`, you can trust it's safe. So that we don't need to separately 
document "safe interface" to the genuine `@trusted` functions we write.