""The Rust safety model is unpopular with the committee. Further work on my end won't change that. Profiles won the argument "The Safety and Security working group voted to prioritize Profiles over Safe C++. Ask the Profiles people for an update. Safe C++ is not being continued," said Sean Baxter in June this year."
""Safe C++ prevents users from writing unsound code," he said. "This includes compile-time intelligence like borrow checking to prevent use-after-free bugs and initialization analysis for type safety.""
""got a vote of encouragement where roughly 1/2 (20/45) of the people encouraged Sean's paper, and 30/45 encouraged work on profiles (with 6 neutral)... Sean is completely welcome to continue the effort, and many in the committee would love to see him make further effort on standardizing it.""
The C++ standards committee voted to prioritize Profiles over Safe C++, effectively halting the Safe C++ effort. The Rust safety model remains unpopular within the committee, reducing support for a borrow-checking approach. Safe C++ aimed to provide Rust-like memory safety via compile-time borrow checking and initialization analysis without requiring a new language. The design intended incremental adoption by applying only to code in a safe context while leaving existing unsafe code unchanged. A committee vote recorded roughly 20 of 45 encouraging Safe C++ and 30 of 45 encouraging Profiles, with several neutrals. EWG principles discourage mandatory safe-or-pure function annotations with certain semantics.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]