cargo-gccrs VS miri

We have `cargo-gccrs` for this, so a cargo subcommand which intercepts arguments given to `rustc` and converts them into `gccrs` arguments :)

https://github.com/rust-GCC/cargo-gccrs/

it's still in a relatively early stage as we are focusing on the compiler. But the idea is for it to be a drop-in replacement for compilation and execution operations, so you'd have `cargo gccrs build`, `cargo gccrs run`, `cargo gccrs test`, etc

gccrs is the compiler (like rustc). You can use cargo with gccrs : https://github.com/Rust-GCC/cargo-gccrs

See https://github.com/Rust-GCC/cargo-gccrs. There will definetly some sort of cargo support in the end. Either by having a behave-like-rustc wrapper around gccrs or by adding support directly to cargo or a cargo fork.

Cargo support for gccrs is part of this project:

https://github.com/Rust-GCC/cargo-gccrs

Moreover, modules are less interesting to me in embedded development as is access to Rust's borrow checker for gaining certainty of small portions of larger projects, which are written in other languages.

- With the [cargo-gccrs](https://github.com/Rust-GCC/cargo-gccrs/) we want to integrate gccrs as seamless as possible into the Rust ecosystem. So yes.

>While we are many missing language features away from this being the case, the noalias case is also magic descended upon box itself, with no user code ever having access to it.

I'm not sure why the author thinks there's magic behind Box. Box is not a special case of `noalias`. Run this snippet with miri and you'll see the same issue: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

`Box` _does_ have an expectation that its inner pointer is not aliased to another Box (even if used for readonly operations). See: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1800#issuecomment-8...)

Miri [0] is an interpreter for the mid-level intermediate representation (MIR) generated by the Rust compiler. MIR is input for more processing steps of the compiler. However miri also runs MIR directly. This means miri is a VM. Of course it's not a bytecode VM, because MIR is not a bytecode AFAIK. I still think that miri is a interesting example.

And why does miri exist?

It is a lot slower. However it can check for some undefined behavior.

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri

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.