new post on evaluating types-as-contracts

[web.git] / ralf / _posts / 2017-07-14-undefined-behavior.md

diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-14-undefined-behavior.md b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-14-undefined-behavior.md
index 77e73151c18cbd644430cc8bbc883eeb8829bca0..46356689dfa90848d28f5d5b387758fc334bc2b3 100644 (file)
--- a/ralf/_posts/2017-07-14-undefined-behavior.md
+++ b/ralf/_posts/2017-07-14-undefined-behavior.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ So, finally, just one year later, this post is my take at what the purpose of th
 <!-- MORE -->
 Warning:  This post may contain opinions.  You have been warned.
 
-## When are optimizations legal?
+## When are Optimizations Legal?
 
 Currently, we have a pretty good understanding of what the intended behavior of *safe* Rust is.
 That is, there is general agreement (modulo some [bugs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27868)) about the order in which operations are to be performed, and about what each individual operation does.
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ After all, if there is any execution for which the assumption does *not* hold, t
 Now, it turns out that it is often really hard to obtain precise aliasing information.
 This could be the end of the game:  No alias information, no way to verify our assumptions, no optimizations.
 
-## Shifting responsibility
+## Shifting Responsibility
 
 However, it turns out that compiler writers consider these optimizations important enough that they came up with an alternative solution:
 Instead of having the compiler verify such assumptions, they declared the programmer responsible.