&gt; In my view, for a language that bills itself as safe, there should not exist such things as undefined behaviors. As far as I am concerned, then, based on the advertising of Rust, this is false advertising.<p>The key thing from the reference [0]:<p>&gt; &quot;Type checking provides the guarantee that these issues are never caused by safe code.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s subtle, but I think the situation is that &quot;some segfaults are caused by undefined behaviour, and some undefined behaviour causes segfaults&quot;. Neither fully contains the other. One thing I was trying to get across is that a segmentation fault has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is <i>not</i> &quot;bad thing was done with pointers&quot;.<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;doc.rust-lang.org&#x2F;reference.html#behavior-considered-undefined" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;doc.rust-lang.org&#x2F;reference.html#behavior-considered-...</a>