On 28/03/14 09:52 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Steve Klabnik <st...@steveklabnik.com > <mailto: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 > > > It seems like, prior to even proposing such a feature, you should at > least make the effort to disable the existing bounds checks in the > language, run benchmarks, and actually compare the performance impact. > > This is the minimum due diligence I would suggest when suggesting a > modification to a language which is specifically designed for memory safety. > > Anything less is, at best, premature optimization. Will removing the > bounds checks improve performance? Who knows, probably, but without > numbers, it's a change that's hard to gauge. It is, however, quite easy > to gauge the impact on the memory safety of the language: it would > decrease it, and Rust already provides unsafe blocks if you need better > performance. So it seems silly to suggest modifications to what is > otherwise the safe subset of the language without at least making a > rudimentary measurement. > > You are suggesting a change to the safe subset of the language, based on > handwavy premature optimization. Based on that, I must say I abjectly > reject your ideas. I suggest you better formalize them, measure, and > present a more concrete plan which is rooted in empirical measurement, > not "hey I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but think this > thing is slow" > > -- > Tony Arcieri
You can already use unchecked indexing in any case where there's a performance issue so I don't really understand what the fuss is about.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
