As "unsafe". An example would be of how AMD GPUs some time ago didn't free a programs' last rendered buffers and you could see the literal last frame in its entirety. Fun stuff.
That is not a memory leak though! That's using/exposing an uninitialized buffer, which can happen even if you allocate and free your allocations correctly. Leaking the buffer would prevent the memory region from being allocated by another application, and would in fact prevent that from happening.
This is also something that Rust does protect against in safe code, by requiring initialization of all memory before use, or using MaybeUninit for buffers that aren't, where reading the buffer or asserting that it has been initialized is an unsafe operation.
It's a security hole. Rust doesn't prevent you from writing unsafe code that reads it. The bug wasn't that it could be read by a well conforming language, it was that it was handed off uninitialized to use space at all.
Russia hasn't stopped invading their neighbors ever since the fall of the soviet union. To state they will stop doing so while Putin is in power is either naive or on purpose to propel some agenda.
That's both a logical fallacy and a strawman argument, not to mention an ad hominem attack. I did not claim that Russia would stop anything and even if Russia did attack several neighbours it is irrelevant. Reasoning and trying to see through the haze is not "having an agenda".
My claim is that Russia is not going to invade or start a war with the EU/NATO/Western Europe (and that, consequentially the "Russia scare" is mostly fearmongering). I don't think that they ever had a plan to, but in any case their campaign in Ukraine has shown that they don't have the capability.
> I did not claim that Russia would stop anything and even if Russia did attack several neighbours it is irrelevant. (...) My claim is that Russia is not going to invade or start a war with the EU/NATO/Western Europe (and that, consequentially the "Russia scare" is mostly fearmongering). I don't think that they ever had a plan to, but in any case their campaign in Ukraine has shown that they don't have the capability.
The only thing that matters is that they have invaded several neighbors over the last few decades. Failing to accomplish their goals hasn't stopped them. Just look at how divided Georgia is, or how the first Chechen war went.
Also, within the context of "fearmongering" you state, the fear is that they wouldn't stop in Ukraine. Yes, you are trying to say Russia will stop, that they won't invade anyone else. But history shows otherwise. That is why I did state above "The only thing that matters is that they have to invaded several neighbors... ".
> Reasoning and trying to see through the haze is not "having an agenda".
I applaud you trying to see through the fog, but I fear you are overcomplicating things and being naive at the same time. Not necessarily having an agenda.
Look, I'm talking from the point of view that Russia will continue to invade others within Europe unless they're stopped. Which is, from what I gathered until now, your fearmongering scenario. I think my responses will make a lot more sense like that.
Maybe the difficulty in conveying thoughts into text struck again. I don't know. I haven't been trying to be malicious or distort your take, really. As I see it we have just been talking past each-other. Perhaps my fault.
Were you saying all this time they won't stop in Ukraine itself? Agreed, if that's the case.
> Obviously that's not the only thing that matters...
Of course it's not all that matters, I have just exaggerated it in an attempt to convey how much their past actions paint that picture. That they will continue doing the same even if absurd. Again, not that clear.
Sometimes you have just to give up participating in internet arguments when you notice the other keeps trying to gaslight you. Yeah whether I'm a good debater or not, one fact is there's a cyber war now _declared_ against Europe, a real war against the Ukraine, and there's also a history of wars against every one of their neighbors, so the fear is totally justified even when pure logic might say correlation is not causality and other ivory tower nonsense. So thank you for your arguments, but I'm sure they fall on deaf ears - whether willingly so or not I don't really care.
Yeah, I do realize that after so many points being neglected over supposed fallacies. From the various comments I'm pretty sure they believe there'll be an end to these fantasies Putin has. But it's impossible trying to argue when the retort is either denial or listing fallacies out of thin air. Another problem they had was over the "naïveté or agenda" point I've made, which they took as an attack on themselves. And honestly if you take the latter personally it doesn't mean the former wasn't an option. And as you've said, we are at war, you have to assume some have an agenda. Not necessarily them.
Still, I do believe that some commenters are just being naive, others taken for a ride, and then there are bots. But I always assume there is a person on the other end if their account isn't new. Hence trying to reach an understanding.
Either way, leaving such posts unanswered always gives a false sense of a common view on a topic, and its good to just demonstrate not everybody agrees.
What can fall under the naivete umbrella is having no skin in the game, thus being comfortable to argue on meta arguments. But not all Europeans have that luxury nowadays...
Well, the first public implementation dates to 2020. And, the Cpp choice is obvious, simpler integration with the majority of existing image processing libs, tools and utilities. Not to mention GUI toolkits.
Nonetheless, we should really bear in mind how entrenched Cpp is. If you normalize CVEs by language popularity Java looks downright dangerous!
Even through UE blueprints (assuming the most high level abstraction here) you will come across the need to perform calculations with matrices. While a lot is abstracted away, you still need to know about coordinate spaces, quirks around order of operations, etc.
None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for its existence. The PR is simply tainted by this alone, not to mention other pain points.
You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.
It matters because it completely weakens their point of stance and make them look unreasonable. Header is irrelevant since it isn't copyright infringement, and FWIW when it has been corrected (in the MR), then they decided that the MR is too complex for them and closed the whole issue. Ridiculous.
An incorrect copyright header is a major red flag for non technical reasons. If you think it is an irrelevant minor matter then you do not undesirable several very important social and legal aspects of the issue.
Social maybe yes what legal aspects? Everybody keeps repeating that but there is no copyright infringement. Maybe you can point me to one?
I understand that people are uncomfortable with this, I am likely too, but objectively looking there's technically nothing wrong or different to what humans already do.
The point is that it ended up in the PR in the first place. The submitted seemed unaware of its presence and only looked into it after it was pointed out. This is sloppy and is a major red flag.
The funny thing is that it works, have a look at the MR. It says:
All existing tests pass. Additional DWARF tests verify:
DWARF structure (DW_TAG_compile_unit, DW_TAG_subprogram).
Breakpoints by function and line in both GDB and LLDB.
Type information and variable visibility.
Correct multi-object linking.
Platform-specific relocation handling.
So the burden of proof is obviously not anymore on the MR submitter side but the other.
