It's not about debugging, it's about memory safety. It'd be ridiculous to disable bounds checking just because you've done QA. How many security exploits are over- or under-flows?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lee Braiden <leebr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the point is that the compiler should not be forcing people to do > things, but enabling people to do things, with sensible defaults. > > Personally, whilst I would advocate MORE bounds checking in rust for > debugging / prototyping purposes, I don't think bounds checking is even > ideal. It's a useful tool WHILST prototyping software, but if you really > want to ensure quality, you do a full QA process, examining all boundary and > corner cases closely. When that's been done, then bounds checks become both > unnecessary, and inefficient. No, not massively unnecessary or inefficient, > but unnecessary and inefficient, all the same. > > > -- > Lee > > > > On 27/03/14 23:09, Matthew McPherrin wrote: >> >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev -- http://octayn.net/ _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
