X-Git-Url: https://git.ralfj.de/web.git/blobdiff_plain/870cbaeae3b06465ceabd15a89ab74edf9f7acc0..ec692a3dcd495e6b87f7d3ea4c485df36141b5a7:/personal/_posts/2019-07-14-uninit.md?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2019-07-14-uninit.md b/personal/_posts/2019-07-14-uninit.md
index 0b16076..bbb1468 100644
--- a/personal/_posts/2019-07-14-uninit.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2019-07-14-uninit.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: '"What The Hardware Does" is not What Your Program Does: Uninitialized Memory'
-categories: rust research
+categories: rust research programming
 forum: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/what-the-hardware-does-is-not-what-your-program-does-uninitialized-memory/10561
 ---
 
@@ -36,25 +36,27 @@ Here is an example to demonstrate why "random bit pattern" cannot describe unini
 use std::mem;
 
 fn always_returns_true(x: u8) -> bool {
-    x < 150 || x > 120
+    x < 120 || x == 120 || x > 120
 }
 
 fn main() {
-    let x: u8 = unsafe { mem::uninitialized() };
+    let x: u8 = unsafe { mem::MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init() };
     assert!(always_returns_true(x));
 }
 {% endhighlight %}
+**Update (2022-11-17):** Switched to `MaybeUninit` to keep the example working in newer versions of Rust.
+
 `always_returns_true` is a function that, clearly, will return `true` for any possible 8-bit unsigned integer.
-After all, *every* possible value for `x` will be less than 150 or bigger than 120.
-A quick loop [confirms this](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018&gist=58168009e601a2f01b08981f907a473c).
-However, if you [run the example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018&gist=da278adb50142d14909df74ea1e43069), you can see the assertion fail.[^godbolt]
+After all, *every* possible value for `x` will be either less than 120, equal to 120, or bigger than 120.
+A quick loop [confirms this](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018&gist=65b690fa3c1691e11d4d45955358cdbe).
+However, if you [run the example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018&gist=c17d299cacd626c572def0c4262aed69), you can see the assertion fail.[^godbolt]
 
-[^godbolt]: In case this changes with future Rust versions, [here is the same example on godbolt](https://godbolt.org/z/JX4B4N); the `xor eax, eax` indicates that the function returns 0, aka `false`. And [here is a version for C++](https://godbolt.org/z/PvZGQB); imagine calling `make_true(true)` which *should* always return `true` but as the assembly shows will return `false`.
+[^godbolt]: In case this changes with future Rust versions, [here is the same example on godbolt](https://godbolt.org/z/9G67hP); the `xor eax, eax` indicates that the function returns 0, aka `false`. And [here is a version for C++](https://godbolt.org/z/TWrvcq).
 
 ## What *is* uninitialized memory?
 
 How is this possible?
-The answer is that, in the "abstract machine" that is used to specify the behavior of our program, every byte in memory cannot just have a value in `0..256` (this is Rust/Ruby syntax for a left-inclusive right-exclusive range), it can also be "uninitialized".
+The answer is that, in the "abstract machine" that is used to specify the behavior of our program, every byte in memory cannot just have a value in `0..256` (this is Rust syntax for a left-inclusive right-exclusive range), it can also be "uninitialized".
 Memory *remembers* if you initialized it.
 The `x` that is passed to `always_return_true` is *not* the 8-bit representation of some number, it is an uninitialized byte.
 Performing operations such as comparison on uninitialized bytes is [undefined behavior]({% post_url 2017-07-14-undefined-behavior %}).
@@ -122,7 +124,7 @@ The Rust abstract machine *does* make a distinction between "relaxed" and "relea
 After all, x86 does not have "uninitialized bytes" either, and still our example program above went wrong.
 
 Of course, to explain *why* the abstract machine is defined the way it is, we have to look at optimizations and hardware-level concerns.
-But without an abstract machine, it is very hard to ensure that all the optimizations a compiler performs are consistent---in fact, both [LLVM](https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35229) and [GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752) suffer from miscompilations caused by combining optimizations that all seem fine in isolation, but together cause incorrect code generation.
+But without an abstract machine, it is very hard to ensure that all the optimizations a compiler performs are consistent---in fact, both [LLVM](https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35229) and [GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752) suffer from miscompilations caused by combining optimizations that all seem [fine in isolation, but together cause incorrect code generation]({% post_url 2020-12-14-provenance %}).
 The abstract machine is needed as an ultimate arbiter that determines which optimizations can be safely combined with each other.
 I also think that when writing unsafe code, it is much easier to keep in your head a fixed abstract machine as opposed to a set of optimizations that might change any time, and might or might not be applied in any order.