rust VS rfcs

For what it's worth, this is the script I'm using to build for our platform: build.ps1 / build.sh

Note that before I got the target triple upstream, I had to provide my own target json file. That's here: https://github.com/betrusted-io/rust/blob/1.53.0-xous/riscv32imac-unknown-xous-elf.json and you can adapt it as necessary. Simply creating the file in the correct path is enough. This is the code that does that: https://github.com/betrusted-io/rust/blob/e39344c5473d49a0cb4d45de119ad23713a00ed4/rebuild.ps1#L65

Everything you need to know to build for our platform is at https://github.com/betrusted-io/rust/ and maybe the scripts or patches there will be interesting to you.

Rust does use a Rust port of dlmalloc on platforms that don't provide malloc() and free(). We did port this to Xous, but ran into a feature bug that caused locking to be disabled. That was the source of weird and subtle bugs, which is how he discovered that fact about allocators.

This is correct.

When you tell someone to install Rust, they go to rustup.rs and install the latest version. Therefore, we need to have a libstd port for the latest version. Which effectively means we need to release libstd as soon as possible after the compiler is released. Our `sys` directory is at https://github.com/betrusted-io/rust/tree/1.61.0-xous/librar... and isn't too complicated. It's about 50 patches that need to be carried forward every six weeks.

Fortunately libstd doesn't change too much, at leaset not the parts we need. And I can usually pre-port the patches by applying them to `beta`, which means the patches against the release version usually apply cleanly.

It's still better than requiring nightly, which has absolutely no stability guarantees. By targeting stable, we don't run into issues of bitrot where we accidentally rely on features that have been removed. Rather than adjusting every service in the operating system, we just need to port one library: libstd

I've considered trying to upstream these, but I'm not sure how the rust team would feel about it.

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469