gccrs VS whisperfish

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)

There are good reasons to exert a level of control over what connects to a communication network. But effectively shutting out a community of developers that would love to implement Signal clients for less popular OSes (many of which happen to attract the kind of infosec-aware crowd that used to be the core pushers of Signal) is not a good outcome.

Exactly. The question here is whether we play or not. I'vre written my thoughts about this on our FAQ, with some references.