llvm-project VS rust

There's an LLVM fork with Z80 and eZ80 support if you want to start work on that yourself.

Very cool. While obviously not ideal, the results are probably accurate within a small factor. Unfortunately there's no assembly version for 65C02 but Z80 does surprisingly well in this test.

I muse what could be done with modern cross-compiler (SAT solving for optional code sequences?) A llvm backend for Z80 has recently kicked back into gear: https://github.com/jacobly0/llvm-project

I also found this Z80 port of LLVM here: https://github.com/jacobly0/llvm-project It seems to be somewhat active and there's also an issue about Rust: https://github.com/jacobly0/llvm-project/issues/15

nightly: Necessary because of the RTN feature.

This Sunday, I had a bit of extra time, so I decided to brush up on Rust. Whether you are a seasoned developer or just starting out, getting your tools set up is always the first step.

There was an idea floated for another lint `#[diagnostics::lint_as_temporary(reason = "...")]`, which is supposed to be added by implementors of such locks. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131154#issuecomment...

It has excellent documentation on how to get started at the official site.

So I did a catalyst build of EX a while back (which is where https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106021 came from) - but rather anticlimactically the end result looked almost identical to the normal iOS app when running under macOS; I don't remember the sidebar/toolbar looking particularly better, and that was my main reason for doing the build in the first place (to get a flexibly resizable left toolbar). The main advantage seemed to be that it would run on Intel.

If things have improved I'd love to know, and then perhaps we'll have another shot at it. Are there any good comparison screenshots of the two approaches (with a toy app, i guess) anywhere?

I think you're being overly optimistic in assuming that is actually the case. Bugs like https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39282 make me think that even simple examples like you wrote could have had problems. Here's a similar bug but for GCC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54878#issuecomment-...

I'm sure there were probably others.

It's generally true that C/C++ code rarely if ever uses restrict & that Rust was the first to actually put any real pressure on those code paths and once it was found it took over a year to fix and it's incorrect to state that the miscompilation was only in code patterns that would only exist in Rust.

Deno (/ˈdiːnoʊ/, pronounced dee-no) is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime with secure defaults and a great developer experience. It's built on V8 Rust, and Tokio.

Rust Programming Language

Worked on a relevant project for Meta.

There’s a lot of overhead as soon as you involve a filesystem rather than a block device, even on a dedicated disk, particularly with btrfs. I don’t know if the same is true with MacOS and APFS; this isn’t the area I usually work in. However copy-on-write file systems (which I believe apfs is) are somewhat predisposed to fragment files as part of the dedup process; I don’t know if apfs runs it online in some way so it could have affected the article’s author’s results.

The standard library implementation details can also have a huge impact, eg I observed with Rust for a prior project when I started fiddling with the read buffer size:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49921

The other issue that I see is that their I/O is implicitly synchronous and requires a memory copy. They might see better performance if they can memmap the file, which can probably solve both issues. Then if C# allows it, they can just parse the CSV in-place; with a language like Rust, you can even trivially do this in a zero-copy manner, though I suspect it’s more involved with C# since this requires setting up strings / parsing that point at the memmaped file.

At that point, the OS should be theoretically able to serve up the cached file for the application to do some logic with, without ever needing to copy the full contents again into separate strings.