On 10/10/2012 11:48 AM, Brian Anderson wrote:
On 10/10/2012 04:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Anderson
bander...@mozilla.com wrote:
Even break and continue by label would be useful without
fall-through in
alt.
Thanks, Henri. I've posted this information
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com wrote:
Even break and continue by label would be useful without fall-through in
alt.
Thanks, Henri. I've posted this information to our bugtracker:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/2216
Thanks. So does this mean I
On 12-04-15 06:23 PM, Joe Groff wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
Only if LLVM's optimizer is smart enough to turn that code into a goto-based
state machine. I'm not sure if it is. (Of course, if it's not, that's
possibly fixable...)
IIRC
On 4/16/12 11:46 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
They're already present (were from the beginning) but they broke when
we shifted from rustboot (hand-rolled code generator) to rustc (LLVM).
It turns out that you have to adopt a somewhat pessimistic ABI in all
cases if your functions are to be
On 12-04-16 11:49 AM, Patrick Walton wrote:
On 4/16/12 11:46 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
They're already present (were from the beginning) but they broke when
we shifted from rustboot (hand-rolled code generator) to rustc (LLVM).
It turns out that you have to adopt a somewhat pessimistic ABI in
Hi,
Am Montag, 16. April 2012 um 20:54 schrieb Graydon Hoare:
On 12-04-16 11:49 AM, Patrick Walton wrote:
On 4/16/12 11:46 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
They're already present (were from the beginning) but they broke when
we shifted from rustboot (hand-rolled code generator) to rustc
On 12-04-16 04:07 PM, Stefan Plantikow wrote:
Some algorithms just yearn for being written in a recursive style.
Or state-machine style, yeah. IMO the use case for tail calls is more
state machines than recursion. But both can be rewritten without. I
think it's just a style issue; I don't
On 04/10/2012 05:53 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
It appears that Rust does not to have labeled loops with break and
continue by label the way Java has. Also, it appears that alt does
not have fall-through the way switch in C has.
Are break and continue by label and/or fall-through in alt supported
On 04/15/2012 06:17 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Could tail calls work? I.e. each label would equal a separate
function (any state would have to be passed through), and then you'd
just keep tail-calling from state to state. Without really knowing
exactly what kind of code you're trying to
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
Only if LLVM's optimizer is smart enough to turn that code into a goto-based
state machine. I'm not sure if it is. (Of course, if it's not, that's
possibly fixable...)
IIRC there was talk of adding explicit tail calls
It appears that Rust does not to have labeled loops with break and
continue by label the way Java has. Also, it appears that alt does
not have fall-through the way switch in C has.
Are break and continue by label and/or fall-through in alt supported
in some non-obvious and unadvertised way? If
11 matches
Mail list logo
