I think your hypothetical situation of saving millions by disabling bounds checks is absurd: To save $10 per machine, assuming $0.20 per kilowatt-hour, and saving 50 nanojoules per bounds check, you'd need to be avoiding about 10^14 check. That's equivalent to avoiding 1 million bounds checks every second. Even if you had hundreds of CPU cores running at full processing power, I would posit that there are bigger problems, and you're probably spending way more power on cache misses or something.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tommi <rusty.ga...@icloud.com> wrote: > On 27 Mar 2014, at 22:17, Steve Klabnik <st...@steveklabnik.com> wrote: > >>> Why isn't there a compiler flag like 'noboundscheck' which would disable >>> all bounds checking for vectors? It would make it easier to have those >>> language performance benchmarks (which people are bound to make with no >>> bounds checking in C++ at least) be more apples-to-apples comparisons. >>> Also, knowing there's a flag in case you need one would put >>> performance-critical people's mind >> >> A flag that removes safety is pretty antithical to the goals of the >> language, IMHO. > > Yes, I agree it's not the official Rust way of things. But not providing the > option seems quite totalitarian. An example use case might be a company that > runs its code on 100,000 servers, and has do so for many years without a > hiccup. They realize they could save millions of dollars a year in > electricity bill by disabling bounds checking, and that's what they decide to > do. At this point they would really like to have that compiler flag. > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
