I’m my experience, LLMs are especially bad at Rust. They really don’t seem to grasp the borrow checker.
Comment on Microsoft wants to replace its entire C and C++ codebase, perhaps by 2030
tonytins@pawb.social 1 day ago
Plans move to Rust, with help from AI
As if AI could handle the mountains of checks Rust has you account for.
vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
tal@lemmy.today 1 day ago
While I agree that I don’t think that an LLM is going to do the heavy lifting there, I assume that Rust has some way of overriding type-induced checks. If your goal is just to get to a mechanically-equivalent-to-C++ Rust version, rather than making full use of its type system to try to make the code as correct as possible, you could maybe do that. It could provide the benefit of a starting place to start using the type system to do additional checks.
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The safety designed into Rust is suddenly foreign to the C family that I’m honestly not sure you can do that. Even “unsafe” Rust doesn’t completely switch off the enforced safety
InnerScientist@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Yeah, to quote the manual:
“[Unsafe Rust allows you to]
- Dereference a raw pointer.
- Call an unsafe function or method.
- Access or modify a mutable static variable.
- Implement an unsafe trait.
- Access fields of unions.
[…] The unsafe keyword only gives you access to these five features that are then not checked by the compiler for memory safety.”
Miaou@jlai.lu 23 hours ago
If they rely on UB at all, then this won’t work. At they you get a compile time error, but more likely your rust program will do weird stuff with memory. And given how much people rely on compilers “acting nice” when it comes to aliasing (something rust does not fuck around with), I wouldn’t hold my breathe
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 day ago
AI: This is unsafe. This is also unsafe. This third one? Unsafe.