*((int*)0): In theory, this is memory unsafe; In practical, this has been exist for about thirty years, making many software system crash. But I know, most C++ programmers don't consider it a big deal.
2014-03-06 13:06 GMT+08:00 comex <com...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Patrick Walton <pwal...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > Dereference of a null pointer is memory-unsafe due to being undefined > > behavior. You can't count on dereference of nullptr resulting in a load > of > > address zero: the optimizer is free to (and often does) remove that load > and > > any code following it. This means that, for example, clang will > cheerfully > > allow you to fall off the end of a function after dereferencing a moved > > pointer. > > True. I have never seen this in a real program (and if I try to test > it by moving a unique_ptr and then dereferencing it, clang generates a > ud2, although it does not for just dereferencing 0), but it is > possible. Still, I don't think most C++ programmers would consider it > a big deal. > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > -- by *Liigo*, http://blog.csdn.net/liigo/ Google+ https://plus.google.com/105597640837742873343/
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
