Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

It's meant to bother people. It was intended to add friction to depending on wrapping and to keep people aware that it's a bug to have unmarked overflows. The language can't accept the significant cost of having overflow checks enabled by default today but wants to do it later.

Replying to

and

Intel supports the carry and overflow flags. It's nearly free to detect wrapping. Even if they didn't, modern CPU performance is dictated by memory latency. Any extra computation that doesn't do extra fetches is close to free.

Replying to

and

That's not the kind of hardware support I'm talking about. You can enable overflow checking and see for yourself that it has a significant performance and code size cost despite using the available intrinsics / hardware support.

9:16 PM · Oct 24, 2018Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Having overflow checks for all arithmetic operation blocks many other optimizations which hurts much more in idiomatic Rust than C. Branches and larger code size hurt overall performance by wasting global resources. The bounds checks are already expensive but not quite as bad.

Replying to

and

The decision involved a lot of people reviewing potential compromises and data on performance. It was a frequent topic and the unfortunate reality is the current compiler and hardware support is very inadequate for the performance tier Rust wants to compete in by default.

Show replies