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

[Nick Treleaven]

On Saturday, 27 July 2024 at 18:23:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's true that many algorithms depend on a null pointer being a 
> "sentinel", and people sometimes forget to check for it.

Or they aren't supposed to have a sentinel but they accidentally 
got passed a null value because the type system allows it.

> That means:
>
> 1. if they forgot to check for the null special case, then the 
> seg fault tells them where the error is
>
> 2. if null was supposed not ever happen, then the seg fault 
> tells where the error is

You don't get a segfault if your tests weren't run or don't (*or 
can't*) cover every case in development. Then *your users* get 
the segfault.

Do you accept that the developer detecting those bugs at 
compile-time is advantageous to the user having their program 
abort? The user might not even know how to file a bug, and it 
could cost them money, time or worse.