On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Thiez <[email protected]> wrote: > This would make for some interesting/confusing calling conventions. It would > also mean &T and &mut T would no longer share a representation; &int would > simply be int, but &mut int would still have to be a pointer. Borrowing &mut > T to &T would be a dereference if T is pointer size or smaller? The only > reliable way of taking an address would be taking &mut because & would fail > for some types. Transmuting *something to &something or back would fail for > some types, unless we make transmute smarter. > > I think for our sanity it would be best to let LLVM perform this kind of > magic when it figures out we won't notice the difference.
It will only do this for internal functions and only at --opt-level=3. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
