rustc_codegen_gcc VS miri

It's true that if this project succeeds, that would be an outcome, but it's probably worth noting that you'd really only have to add support for the GCC backend to do that, and not reimplement the frontend as well (parsing, type checking, lifetime checking, etc.). There's an unrelated project working to do that: https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc that would likely yield those same benefits for less effort.

platform support (may improve soon)

Here's the gcc backend for rustc here https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc Since this just swaps the optimizer/codegen module and reuses all the other stuff from rustc it needs less work and can already compile many valid rust programs.

I'd like to use the rustc_codegen_gcc backend to compile some Rust programs, but I'm confused about how to install and use the patched libgccjit dependency. I've downloaded the fork provided but don't know where to go from there.

I was being a little sloppy and mixing together "actual embedded hardware" with "extensions for applications written in other languages" in my head. I think your point about LLVM is still accurate, though I hear peeps about different projects working on GCC support from time to time.

This doesn't have anything to do with using GCC to compile rust, but instead using rustc to compile Rust using the GCC backend. You can do that today by using the linked project, rustc_codegen_gcc, which is intended to be integrated into rustc at some point in the (hopefully near) future.

Rather than mrustc you should probably look at rustc_codegen_gcc which uses gcc as a backend to rustc (WIP) or GCC Rust which tries to implement a rust frontend for gcc (also WIP). I think rustc_codegen_gcc looks the most promising at the moment

Libgccjit AOT Codegen for Rustc\ (2 comments)

Provenance is a dynamic property of pointer values. The actual underlying rules that a program must follow, even when using raw pointers and `unsafe`, are written in terms of provenance. Miri (https://github.com/rust-lang/miri) represents provenance as an actual value stored alongside each pointer's address, so it can check for violations of these rules.

Lifetimes are a static approximation of provenance. They are erased after being validated by the borrow checker, and do not exist in Miri or have any impact on what transformations the optimizer may perform. In other words, the provenance rules allow a superset of what the borrow checker allows.

There has been discussion of doing this with MIRI, which would be easier than all of rustc.

This issue has been fixed: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2964

Actually, I've done more advanced tests with MIRI (see https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2920 for example) which allowed me to fix some issues. I've also made the code compatible with loom, but I didn't found the time yet to write and execute loom tests. That's on the TODO-list, and I need to track it with an issue too.

He is one of the big brains behind Miri, which is a interpreter that runs on the MIR (compiler representation between human code and asm/machine code) and detects undefined behavior. Super useful tool for language safety, pretty interesting on its own.

I would also run your tests in Miri (https://github.com/rust-lang/miri) to try to cover more bases.

You can run miri and it will tell you if the given run triggered any undefined behavior. It will not analyze it for every possible use of the code, but checking for the presence of this specific issue using it should be fairly simple.

If you do encounter a piece of code on which TB performs much worse than SB, do submit it as an issue! There was one recently and we massively improved TB performance on this case by improving garbage collection.