Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, well your (wrong) semantic argument that "GMM violation = UB" is irrelevant, so I'll stop arguing against it other than hinting that there is not one single mention of the word "undefined" in the GMM spec. Back on topic: Go is not memory-safe. Your belief that "GMM violation = UB", where UB = memory corruption literally and by definition implies that Go is not memory-safe. Java (which is where the term "memory…
> GMM violation = UB This is definitionally correct (shrug) > Dilettante programmers certainly do not know [that] Go slices, strings, and interface values are unsafely non-atomic. Yes. They do. As soon as a Go programmer learns that there is such a thing as concurrency and "thread safety" they learn that nothing in Go is "thread safe" by default. > Go is not memory-safe. "Memory-safe" is not a precisely defined conce…
Re: Programming Language Memory Models
#101[deleted]