Correct, that's what I mean. I trust SQLite's devs to know more about this, so I...

viraptor · 2026-02-16T19:22:08 1771269728

You normally count/test branches at the original language level, not the compiled one. Otherwise we'd get VERY silly results like:

- counting foo().except() as 2 branches

- counting a simple loop as a missed branch, because it got unrolled and you didn't test it with 7,6,5,4,3,2,1 items

- failing on unused straight implementation of memcpy because your CPU supports SIMD and chose that alternative

Etc. The compiled version will be full of code you'll never run regardless of language.

scott_w · 2026-02-17T07:10:47 1771312247

That’s not my requirement, that’s SQLite’s requirement. If you want to dispute their claim, I recommend you write to them, however I strongly suspect they know more about this than you do.

viraptor · 2026-02-18T02:38:57 1771382337

I know it's on the sqlite side. I'm familiar with the claim and disagree with it.

scott_w · 2026-02-18T08:02:01 1771401721

You’re arguing in this context:

> wouldn't the ability to automatically rewrite sqlite in Rust be a valuable asset?

If you want to rewrite SQLite, you must accept their position. Otherwise you simply aren’t rewriting SQLite, you’re writing your own database.

viraptor · 2026-02-20T06:06:27 1771567587

Not having bound checks does not make sqlite sqlite. If that was the case, you couldn't compile it with https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html turned on and still call it sqlite for example.

Philpax · 2026-02-16T16:58:59 1771261139

The type system does not require that. You can just discard the result:

  let _ = do_thing();

scott_w · 2026-02-17T07:09:07 1771312147

Except that doesn’t work if you need to use the result…