[rust-dev] Integer overflow, round -2147483648
danielmicay at gmail.com
Sat Jun 21 16:10:57 PDT 2014
On 21/06/14 06:26 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not possible to add new instructions to x86_64 that are not large
>> and hard to decode. It's too late, nothing short of breaking backwards
>> compatibility by introducing a new architecture will provide trapping on
>> overflow without a performance hit. To repeat what I said elsewhere,
>> Rust's baseline would still be obsolete if it failed on overflow because
>> there's no indication that we can sanely / portably implement failure on
>> overflow via trapping. It's certainly not possible in LLVM right now.
> Er... since when? Many single-byte opcodes in x86-64 corresponding to
> deprecated x86 instructions are currently undefined.
I don't see enough gaps here for the necessary instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Rust-dev