gccrs VS Rust-for-Linux

The community has been very supportive of the gccrs (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs) project, which is the main project to write a Rust compiler written in C.

There is a Rust front-end for GCC that is under active development [1]. If the chip vendors are not willing to develop and upstream a LLVM back-end then they can feel free to start contributing to it.

[1] https://rust-gcc.github.io/

That's why gccrs doesn't even consider lifetime checking a part of the language (they plan to use Polonius, too).

There's ongoing work on a Rust front-end for GCC (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs). Bit barebones right now -- ie, even core doesn't compile -- but there's funding, demand, and regular progress, so it'll only get better from there. Once gccrs can compile core, it should be ready to compile most of Rust, and thus if you've taught the calling conventions for C to GCC, you're golden.

I recommend checking out the GCC Rust frontend project.

That is what theyre refering to, yes. The GitHub is named https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs

- But this misses so much extra context information

3. Macro invocations there are really subtle rules on how you treat macro invocations such as this which is not documented at all https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/blob/master/gcc/rust/expan...

Some day I personally want to write a blog post about how complicated and under spec'd Rust is, then write one about the stuff i do like it such as iterators being part of libcore so i don't need reactive extensions.

You're welcome.

> Any concerns of the same kind of thing?

Here's the canonical list: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2

There's a lot, and I don't know the status of many of them, personally. But I don't see anything there that I know is not gonna work out, like for example, they aren't using specialization. Most of it feels like very nuts and bolts codegen options and similar things.

That said, back in August, the Rust Project announced their goals for the second half of this year: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/08/12/Project-goals.html

They say that they're committed to getting this stuff done, and in particular: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-project-goals/2024h2/rfl_st...

> Closing these issues gets us within striking distance of being able to build the RFL codebase on stable Rust.

So, things sound good, in my mind.

The goal of rust for linux isn't to wholesale translate linux into rust, but simply to be able to write pieces of linux (largely new ones) in rust. I think it's very unlikely anyone (including google) will take on a wholesale translation anytime soon. That said

> It's unlikely that Google has much sway here

Google has helped fund the rust for linux project pretty much from the start [1], they're one of three organizations mentioned on the homepage due to their sponorship [2]. They're actively involved in it, and have already ported their android "binder" driver into it with the intent to ship it in android. This strikes me as a very weird take.

[1] https://www.memorysafety.org/blog/supporting-miguel-ojeda-ru...

[2] https://rust-for-linux.com/

Rust is backwards compatible when you stick to stable features, but the kernel uses unstable features that can and do incur breaking changes.

https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2

> How would this work?

Don't know exactly what you're asking.

> And why would it be a better idea?

Poorly written device drivers are a significant attack vector. It's one of the reasons Linux is now exploring using Rust for its own device drivers.[0] You may be asking -- why Rust and not some other language? Rust has many of the performance and interoperability advantages of C and C++, but as noted, makes certain classes of memory safety issues impossible. Rust also has significant mindshare among systems programming communities.

[0]: https://rust-for-linux.com

Rust-for-Linux issue tracker