4 ms·

> doing compile-time execution in a sound, safe way is not simple. For example, cross compilation becomes more of a thing. It is easy to accidentally break the

> doing compile-time execution in a sound, safe way is not simple. For example, cross compilation becomes more of a thing. It is easy to accidentally break the type system. Why? I don't think I've ever seen a concrete example of why this isn't simple (but I'm not really a compiler person, so there might be!). I can imagine plenty of ways of doing Bad Things, like adding compiler flags based on what day it is, but I can't immediately see why this would _break_ anything. What do you mean by breaking the type system? Accidentally getting non-typechecked code in the compiler, or running into problems with the compiler thinking two equal types are distinct? > There's just not a lot to say. The exact details are being worked on. This takes time. I understand and appreciate this! Maybe I should've phrased myself better: I don't understand how people are using `unsafe` today successfully when something as fundamental to the Rust language model such as aliasing isn't really defined properly yet. It sound like people writing books without the rules on verb conjugation being really set. It sounds to me like plenty of the unsafe code out there might end up breaking at some point, and that, by extension, all other safe code out there is basically built on extremely shaky grounds. I might be overreacting here though, since I don't write a whole lot of Rust anymore and am pretty distanced from the community. Considering their track record, I'm sure it'll turn out just fine. --- > (By the way, Hacker News doesn't support markdown; Ah! It's always tricky to remember which places support what syntax with these things. Thanks!

steveklabnik 6y ago
> Accidentally getting non-typechecked code in the compiler, or running into problems with the compiler thinking two equal types are distinct? Yes, this sort of thing. Basically, you have to have this be deterministic, or you end up with very strange possibilities, possible miscompilations, and in the best case, confusing errors. One option is to simply accept that these things can happen. Another is to restrict what you can do at compile time to ensure that they can't. An extremely simple example is cross compiling. In Rust, usize is dependent on the architecture you're compiling for. A very simple "just compile and run the program, get the answer, and use it" implementation of compile-time execution will produce a usize of the size of the host, not the target. That's a miscompilation. This example, while being simple, is also simple to fix. But it's an example of how it's not as trivial as "use the compiler to compile the program, then run it." Which maybe isn't how you think of this feature, but how I was, back before I knew anything about this topic :) > I might be overreacting here though Nah, I think that you're not wrong. It's just that, when you start applying this super rigorously, you end up in weird places. How can you trust any behavior in a language without a specification? How you can you trust a specification if that specification hasn't been formally proven? How you can trust an implementation of a formally proven specification? How you can you trust that the silicon you're running on does the right thing, even with your bug free, formally proven code? Everyone chooses somewhere along this axis to be comfortable with. And everyone does something, including "I can ignore these problems because in practice they don't happen to me," to deal with the bits outside of what they consciously choose to focus on.
- martinhath 6y ago
  > An extremely simple example is cross compiling. In Rust, usize is dependent on the architecture you're compiling for. A very simple "just compile and run the program, get the answer, and use it" implementation of compile-time execution will produce a usize of the size of the host, not the target. I get that there are non-obvious problems here, and as you say, this problem specifically has an easy fix, but I'd just like to note how Zig does this: const std = @import("std"); pub fn main() anyerror!void { std.debug.warn("{}\n", .{.{ @sizeOf(*usize), comptime @sizeOf(*usize) }}); } Modulo the `.{` weirdness, this probably looks familiar. By default, this prints out 8 and 8 on my system, but if I cross-compile to a 32-bit target, it prints 4 and 4. > It's just that, when you start applying this super rigorously, you end up in weird places. How can you trust any behavior in a language without a specification? I think this is a social issue for me; if rustc decides one day to change its behavior under my feet it feels like it's my fault for not having written proper Rust in the first place (even if the behavior wasn't properly defined in the first place), but if there's crazy things going on in the compiler due to bugs (that we didn't find, because proofs are hard), then that's not really my fault, in a sense. And of course, if my CPU decides to run my program wrong, that can't really be blamed on me. The end result in these three cases are all the same: the program didn't run as expected, but the blame (I don't want to point fingers, but this is the best word I could come up with) is different, and the probability of this happening is vastly different. I've never hit a CPU bug, but in the little unsafe Rust code I have written, I've had behavior change with a compiler update, which I'm sure is because I hit UB. And for what it's worth, I would greatly prefer Rust having a proper spec, even if that would increase turnaround time for the language evolution, just to ensure that everyone really is on the same page with respect to what the language really should and shouldn't do. I realize that Rust would rather be careful and make sure that the decisions made are the right ones. I think it's a fair trade-off, but I'm not sure I would have made it, if it were up to me.
  - steveklabnik 6y ago
    > I'd just like to note how Zig does this: Right, what I'm talking about is the implementation of "comptime @sizeOf(*usize)". That it does the right thing is good! It's easy to accidentally implement it in a way that does not. > And for what it's worth, I would greatly prefer Rust having a proper spec We all would :)
mwcampbell 6y ago
> It sound like people writing books without the rules on verb conjugation being really set. I'm sure this happened earlier in the history of English. Of course, humans are much more forgiving than compilers.
- martinhath 6y ago
  Hehe yeah, it's not a great analogy :)

steveklabnik 6y ago

> Accidentally getting non-typechecked code in the compiler, or running into problems with the compiler thinking two equal types are distinct? Yes, this sort of thing. Basically, you have to have this be deterministic, or you end up with very strange possibilities, possible miscompilations, and in the best case, confusing errors. One option is to simply accept that these things can happen. Another is to restrict what you can do at compile time to ensure that they can't. An extremely simple example is cross compiling. In Rust, usize is dependent on the architecture you're compiling for. A very simple "just compile and run the program, get the answer, and use it" implementation of compile-time execution will produce a usize of the size of the host, not the target. That's a miscompilation. This example, while being simple, is also simple to fix. But it's an example of how it's not as trivial as "use the compiler to compile the program, then run it." Which maybe isn't how you think of this feature, but how I was, back before I knew anything about this topic :) > I might be overreacting here though Nah, I think that you're not wrong. It's just that, when you start applying this super rigorously, you end up in weird places. How can you trust any behavior in a language without a specification? How you can you trust a specification if that specification hasn't been formally proven? How you can trust an implementation of a formally proven specification? How you can you trust that the silicon you're running on does the right thing, even with your bug free, formally proven code? Everyone chooses somewhere along this axis to be comfortable with. And everyone does something, including "I can ignore these problems because in practice they don't happen to me," to deal with the bits outside of what they consciously choose to focus on.

martinhath 6y ago
> An extremely simple example is cross compiling. In Rust, usize is dependent on the architecture you're compiling for. A very simple "just compile and run the program, get the answer, and use it" implementation of compile-time execution will produce a usize of the size of the host, not the target. I get that there are non-obvious problems here, and as you say, this problem specifically has an easy fix, but I'd just like to note how Zig does this: const std = @import("std"); pub fn main() anyerror!void { std.debug.warn("{}\n", .{.{ @sizeOf(*usize), comptime @sizeOf(*usize) }}); } Modulo the `.{` weirdness, this probably looks familiar. By default, this prints out 8 and 8 on my system, but if I cross-compile to a 32-bit target, it prints 4 and 4. > It's just that, when you start applying this super rigorously, you end up in weird places. How can you trust any behavior in a language without a specification? I think this is a social issue for me; if rustc decides one day to change its behavior under my feet it feels like it's my fault for not having written proper Rust in the first place (even if the behavior wasn't properly defined in the first place), but if there's crazy things going on in the compiler due to bugs (that we didn't find, because proofs are hard), then that's not really my fault, in a sense. And of course, if my CPU decides to run my program wrong, that can't really be blamed on me. The end result in these three cases are all the same: the program didn't run as expected, but the blame (I don't want to point fingers, but this is the best word I could come up with) is different, and the probability of this happening is vastly different. I've never hit a CPU bug, but in the little unsafe Rust code I have written, I've had behavior change with a compiler update, which I'm sure is because I hit UB. And for what it's worth, I would greatly prefer Rust having a proper spec, even if that would increase turnaround time for the language evolution, just to ensure that everyone really is on the same page with respect to what the language really should and shouldn't do. I realize that Rust would rather be careful and make sure that the decisions made are the right ones. I think it's a fair trade-off, but I'm not sure I would have made it, if it were up to me.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  > I'd just like to note how Zig does this: Right, what I'm talking about is the implementation of "comptime @sizeOf(*usize)". That it does the right thing is good! It's easy to accidentally implement it in a way that does not. > And for what it's worth, I would greatly prefer Rust having a proper spec We all would :)

mwcampbell 6y ago

> It sound like people writing books without the rules on verb conjugation being really set. I'm sure this happened earlier in the history of English. Of course, humans are much more forgiving than compilers.

martinhath 6y ago
Hehe yeah, it's not a great analogy :)