Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Thu, 15 May 2025 11:52:16 -0400 |
| 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="72570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | Rust |
| Posted-Date: | 15 May 2025 20:50:44 EDT |
On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:21:51 +0000, 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.
Debug builds in Rust may do considerable runtime checking depending on
what the code is trying to do.
There is a small amount of checking done even in release builds. There
are always some things that can't be checked at compile time.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.