I worry a little that perfectly cromulent Rust will get a bad name when the culture tends towards “unsafe is bad.”
Is there real value in these statistics vs. an approach where the measure is test coverage of unsafe blocks?
Is there real value in these statistics vs. an approach where the measure is test coverage of unsafe blocks?
But test coverage of unsafe blocks is not a meaningful metric. The best automated solution is standalone Miri runners exercising all branches of the code (via tests or otherwise) because tests on their own won’t catch things like out of counts reads or heap corruption unless you get lucky.
Short of formal verification, which I think is often going to be unreasonable, we generally have a spectrum of “less bad” options.