HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
duneroadrunner
SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation
C++2017–2020
duneroadrunner / SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation

SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation

This project has been superseded by SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation2 (https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation2) and remains here for posterity.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
3Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
9GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

This project has been superseded by SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation2 (https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation2) and remains here for posterity.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:56:55 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-07-01 01:39:57 UTC to 2020-01-25 01:09:20 UTC.

01232017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsJul 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 20182018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 2020

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20182018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20182018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Apr 20182018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20182018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20182018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20182018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20182018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20182018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20182018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20182018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20182018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20192019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20192019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Apr 20192019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20192019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20192019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20192019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20192019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20192019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20192019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20192019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20192019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
duneroadrunner·Mar 23, 2018
SaferCPlusPlus[1], for example, is a safe subset of C++ that has compatible safe substitutes for C++'s (and therefore C's) unsafe elements. So migrating existing C/C++ code generally just requires replacing variable declarations, not restructuring the code. For C programs, one strategy is to provide a set of macros to be used as replacements for unsafe types in variable declarations. These macros will allow you, with a compile-time directive, to switch between using the original unsafe C elements, or the compatible safe substitutes (which are C++ and require a C++ compiler). The replacement of unsafe C types with the compatible substitute macros can be largely automated, and there is actually a nascent auto-translator[2] in the works. (Well, it's being a bit neglected at the moment :) Custom conventions using macros to improve code qualit
Read the rest
y are not that uncommon in organized C projects. Right? But this one can (optionally, theoretically) deliver complete memory safety. So you might imagine, for example, a linux distribution providing two build versions, where one is a little slower but memory safe. [1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
In C for All
duneroadrunner·Mar 16, 2018
> "guaranteed to be safe" (which will most likely require tooling) rather than merely "safer" - and I will be the first one to promote it myself :-) Well I hope so, as SaferCPlusPlus could use a little promotion :) At this point, despite the name, I think the dialect itself is "safe", not just "safer". Potentially unsafe features are relegated to the "mse::us" namespace and are generally only needed for interop with legacy code. Of course there's no way to enforce that a programmer stick to the "dialect"/subset without some tooling. But I think the "rule" for adhering to the SaferCPlusPlus subset is pretty simple and generally intuitive. That is, "any potentially unsafe element of C++ should be avoided". And I think most of us have a pretty good sense of which C++ elements are potentially unsafe. The (few) unintuitive ones might include t
Read the rest
hings like the implicit "this" pointer (which is a native pointer, so it should be avoided). A tool to enforce adherence would be fairly straightforward to write. When there is sufficient demand it will be provided. At the moment an "auto-translation"[1] tool has higher priority. > quite simple: there are only 3 concepts, with 2 of them ('naked' and 'owning'=unique_ptr<>) being already very familiar It's the same with SaferCPlusPlus, but the 3 "concepts" (pointer types) are "reference counting" pointer (=std::shared_ptr<>), "registered pointer" (= safe, unrestricted naked pointer), and "scope" pointer (basically a naked pointer that is restricted to stack allocation (i.e. a "local variable") and can only point to objects guaranteed to outlive it). The Core Guidelines also has three "concepts"/pointer types (shared, unique, and naked). I suspect that some experience will reveal that SaferCPlusPlus has the better set of pointer types. ... Oh wait, you're the author of the article? In which case, I think it would be worth your time to get more familiar with SaferCPlusPlus. Even if just as research for your own dialect. But with some experience, I think ultimately you might be convinced by the SaferCPlusPlus solution. In fact, there's no reason why your (Re)Actors couldn't be implemented on top of SaferCPlusPlus, which would automatically provide the safe "collections" that you need. Don't hesitate to post any questions in the "issues" section[2]. [1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla... [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus/issues
In A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption
duneroadrunner·Mar 15, 2018
> It's technically possible, but retrofitting old code rarely happens. Yeah. A more realistic solution might be auto-translation of existing code. Here[1] is an example that replaces declarations of arrays, and pointers used as array iterators, with macros that enable the code to be compiled as either unsafe C code or "safe" C++ code (bounds checked and iterator use-after-free safe). Determining in general whether or not a pointer is being used as an array iterator, or a pointer to an array is not trivial. It sometimes has to be deduced from context. Which may be why it doesn't seem to have been done already? [1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
In Checked C: extension to C that adds static and dynamic checking

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.