Thank you, that is very clear.
Thank you, that is very clear.
The way I understand it, it is a bug in C implementation of free() that causes it to do something weird when you call it twice on the same memory. Maybe In Rust you can never call free twice, so you would never come across this bug. But, also Rust probably doesn’t have the same bug.
My point is it seems it is a bug in the underlying implementation of free(), not to be caught by the compiler, and can’t Rust have such errors no matter its superior design?
They should have one for heterosexuality, too, if it’s all about tastes.
I don’t know about funny, this is actually a little disturbing to me. Like, here the decision is silly and no real principles involved, but the fact that corporations can be forced to take any technically legal action (including lobbying to change the law) to improve short term bottom line has more serious consequences elsewhere.
I admit I don’t know the whole story, but those benefits sound kind of weak to me and my take on the last test was that it was just the quickest way to dispose of a giant prototype they didn’t need anymore as they had already built the next. And it seems they acted in bad faith concerning the apparently entirely predictable damage to the surrounding environment, which I know just looks like crap land to many, but as a desert person I feel for it. I’m happy to know there’s some bureaucratic backlash for that. I don’t get the urgency. I’m open to understanding better, but I offer my viewpoint from the bleachers.
Thanks, I understand the problem with using memory after it’s been freed and possibly access it changed by another part of the process. I guess I was confused by the double free explanation I read, which didn’t really say how it could be exploited, but I think you are right it still needs to be accessed later by the original program, which would not happen in Rust.