[rust-dev] Integer overflow, round -2147483648
danielmicay at gmail.com
Sat Jun 21 17:02:31 PDT 2014
On 21/06/14 07:55 PM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
>> No one will use Rust if it's slow. If it uses checked arithmetic, it
>> will be slow. There's nothing subjective about that.
> This is the only argument that matters.
> If we are slower than C++, Rust will not replace C++ and will have
> failed at its goal of making the world a safer place. The world already
> has a glut of safe and slow languages; if inefficiency were acceptable,
> then C++ would have been replaced long ago.
> In addition, bringing up hypothetical CPU architectures with support for
> checked arithmetic is not relevant. Rust is a language designed for
> 2014, not for 2024.
> And if in 2024 we are all suddenly gifted with CPUs where checked
> arithmetic is literally free and if this somehow causes Rust to be
> "obsolete" (which seems unlikely in any case), then so be it. Rust is
> not the last systems programming language that will ever be written.
Not only does the hardware have to provide it, but each OS also has to
expose it in a way that Rust could use to throw an exception, unless the
proposal is to simply abort on overflow. LLVM would also have to gain
support for unwinding from arithmetic operations, as it can't currently
do that. Even with hardware support for the operation itself, giving
every integer operation a side effect would still cripple performance by
wiping out optimizations.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Rust-dev