Re:Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline
by pekk on Friday February 13, 2015 @11:39PM
(#9048777)
Why can't you ensure it is zeroed in advance of destructor invocation?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline
by m_mueller on Friday February 13, 2015 @11:42PM
(#9048784)
because you don't know how 'intelligent' the compiler is. As long as there's no intrinsic you can't be sure that it works/keeps on working.
Re:Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline
by omega_rythm on Saturday February 14, 2015 @03:51PM
(#9050752)
Which is a deficiency of compilers and languages they support: there should be a notion of "verbatim" code, where the compiler doesn't try to apply any code transformation changing the "literal" semantics (as opposed to "intended" semantics).
Of course this would only be possible for languages like C which don't make any advanced abstractions on the hardware arch.