GCC Rust Approved by Steering Committee, Beta Likely Next April - Slashdot
source link: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/07/17/0110250/gcc-rust-approved-by-steering-committee-beta-likely-next-april
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
GCC Rust Approved by Steering Committee, Beta Likely Next April
The GCC Steering Committee has approved of the GCC Rust front-end providing Rust programming language support by the GNU Compiler Collection. This Rust front-end will likely be merged ahead of the GCC 13 release next year. The GCC Steering Committee this morning has announced that the Rust front-end "GCC Rust" is appropriate for inclusion into the GCC mainline code-base. This is the effort that has been in the works for a while as an alternative to Rust's official LLVM-based compiler. GCC Rust is still under active development but is getting into shape for mainlining. The hope is to have at least "beta" level support for the Rust programming language in GCC 13, which will be released as stable around April of next year.
›
It arguably doesn't make sense to use Rust in Linux until gcc can compile it. I'm not saying any license prohibits it, but it seems to somewhat defeat the purpose of using the GPL if you can't use a GPL'd compiler to compile the sources.
-
It will make tooling easier but also llvm may provide better object code for a while.
The Zig people are doing some cool language-fluid things leveraging llvm flexibility.
I wouldn't mind seeing Zig kernel modules either. Their principles are good for security.
-
Pretty much, yes. Also makes Rust a bit more professional (which is clearly needed) bu providing a 2nd source for a compiler.
-
I always compile C++ I write on at least 2 versions of gcc seperated by a good few years and clang because its amazing how some compiler versions won't pick up coding errors even with -Wall -Wextra -pedantic given and also the differences in behaviour under optimisation (often caused by a program bug, not a compiler one).
-
While I do not use C++ (looked at it around 20 years ago, found the design to be pretty bad and hard to remember), this is interesting. Is your take that at the root of this are bugs, a too complex standard, changes in the standard or something else?
-
It's all of the above. C++ compilers issue more warnings because they get better at rejecting language constructs that are technically illegal, programming patterns that are hazardous in practice, and new language features. But most of the benefit of using compilers that are significantly different in age is to detect accidental uses of new or deprecated language features that limit the portability of the code.
-
Good point. Although that reminds me a bit with the mess on the web, where some web sites do not work in standards conforming browsers because they only tested with some browsers in some versions. Just had to switch browsers for two (!) online shops because both were behaving erratically. (The art of giving good error messages also seems to be lost on the web completely.)
-
-
Well C++ is too syntatically complicated now but thats another argument. The main issue for me is that the gcc devs seem to constantly change what they consider to be syntatic errors/warnings or what the error level should be. Also some things that should be warnings seem to be missed entirely (eg unused variables) on certain versions of gcc though its improved again recently.
-
Ok, so apparently the problem is too fuzzily defined or too complex (and there are probably some big egos in the mix too). Will be interesting to see how much Rust on gcc suffers from this problem.
-
-
Imagine if you'd devoted 6 months of that time to learning it properly...
-
-
-
-
You seem to ignore the fact that zero part of Linux is written in Rust currently. All Linus and the kernel developers have done is taken steps to include it in the future and let the community know. Also Linus has made it clear they are testing whether Rust is a good fit and it may not be a permanent change. Why is your reaction to every Rust news as if Linux switched all source code to Rust overnight?
-
It's irrelevant to the point being made.
Mu. When did you stop beating your wife? [wikipedia.org]
-
What part of Linus and the developers are PLANNING to include it at a future date is not clear? No one has said Rust is ready to be part of Linux now. No one.
You never addressed the point. Why is your point from the stance that Linux has already converted to Rust instead of the reality that zero part of the kernel is written in Rust currently. There is a lot of work that needs to be done and many steps need to be taken before Rust in Linux is a reality.
Your point is as idiotic as this:
Me: Next year, I plan-
You just want to bitch about me bitching, so you've invented a way to be mad about it. Go ahead and be mad.
-
-
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK