Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Wed, 14 May 2025 20:01:47 -0000 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 25-05-004 25-05-005 25-05-006 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="32612"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | Rust, optimize |
| Posted-Date: | 14 May 2025 16:42:18 EDT |
On 2025-05-14, arnold@freefriends.org <arnold@freefriends.org> wrote:
> In article 25-05-005,
> Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> wrote:
>>I suspect that the same is happening with Rust. If so, how does using
>>Rust make the code safer than using C without any checking switched
>>on?
>
> Rust catches many problems at compile time. I am not at all a Rust
> expert, or even a novice, but I don't think Rust does runtime
> bounds checking, since it relies on compiler analysis instead.
How would it be safe if you could write a Rust program that asks the
user to input a random decimal number, and then uses it an index to
access an array, without any check?
The compiler will eliminate bounds checks at compile time if it can
infer they are unnecessary; e.g. a loop sets up a dummy variable to step
over the correct range, and does not mess with it otherwise.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.