gccrs VS mold

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.

(Speaking of which, Rust-GCC (or gcc-rs or gccrs or whichever other of their names they decide is the primary one) isn't even going to be a complete C++ implementation. Their plan is to implement enough to compile Polonius (the NLL 2.0 borrow checker being developed in Rust for rustc) and then share that since borrow-checking isn't necessary for codegen... only to identify and reject invalid programs... making the C++ portion of it not that different in scope from mrustc.)

That bridge will be crossed with gccrs (compiling Rust with gcc directly, coming next month with GCC 13) and rust_codegen_gcc (rustc frontend, GCC backend, works now but just doesn’t yet have an “easy” setup)

I think this is unlikely to gain traction. I say that no to discourage you, just to explain.

- The community has an instinctive distrust of closed source or a compiler from an untrusted source. If you’re familiar with the Trusting Trust attack you’ll understand why.

- Dev tools in every language ecosystem are almost always free, unless they involve some kind of hosting. People aren’t used to opening their wallets. Look the experience of the guy who built the mold linker(https://github.com/rui314/mold). Far superior to the state of art, improves incremental compiles a lot, widely applicable across ecosystems (C, C++, Rust), CPU architectures and Operating Systems. You don’t even have to modify your compiler, just need to point to his linker. He’s even giving it away for free for personal use. But still, almost no one uses it. The inertia of the established options is really high.

- It’s not complex enough. Think about the complexity involved in the cranelift backend. No one can seriously recreate the efforts of bjorn3. If we could have, we would have. But the idea idea here can be recreated, especially by the experts who already built incremental compilation into rustc.

- But if your solution is truly complex, like the parallel frontend, the burden of maintaining a fork would be too high. You’d have to spend all your time rebasing.

Again I’m not trying to discourage you, just stating the difficulties of making a business in the dev tools space. You would be better off contributing this excellent work to the community and trying a different tack.

I initially thought this would be about the mold linker (https://github.com/rui314/mold)

I assume this submission is trying to highlight the specific message (2023-01-24) : https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/190#issuecomment-14028...

Fyi... the author wrote a more expansive blog post about selling dev tools a few months later (2023-06-06) and there was a related HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016

Loongson's LoongArch CPU has been supported. (03b1a1c)

I'm amazed at how quickly the author responds to requests: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/1057

From the report to the fix in less than two days.

I'm not sure how competitive it will be with lld, especially if we consider ThinLTO (which takes multiple minutes on 64-core machine) - it can make the advantages of mold insignificant.

What other solutions have you tried for the problem of slow linking? You haven't even said which linker and what flags you're using. I haven't actually tried it, but the author of gold has an even faster linker called mold: https://github.com/rui314/mold

> Mold did it first, though: https://github.com/rui314/mold

Before LLD?