macos-cross-compiler
cargo-zigbuild
macos-cross-compiler | cargo-zigbuild | |
---|---|---|
4 | 19 | |
324 | 1,224 | |
- | 5.7% | |
8.8 | 8.6 | |
3 months ago | 16 days ago | |
Earthly | Rust | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
macos-cross-compiler
-
I stopped worrying and loved Makefiles
Make is excellent if you use it properly to model your dependencies. This works really well for languages like C/C++, but I think Make really struggles with languages like Go, JavaScript, and Python or when your using a large combination of technologies.
I've found Earthly [0] to be the _perfect_ tool to replace Make. It's a familiar syntax (combination of Dockerfiles + Makefiles). Every target is run in an isolated Docker container, and each target can copy files from other targets. This allows Earthly to perform caching and parallelization for free, and in addition you get lots of safety with containerization. I've been using Earthly for a couple of years now and I love it.
Some things I've built with it:
* At work [1], we use it to build Docker images for E2E testing. This includes building a Go project, our mkdocs documentation, our Vue UI, and a ton of little scripts all over the place for generating documentation, release notes, dependency information (like the licenses of our deps), etc.
* I used it to create my macOS cross compiler project [2].
* A project for playing a collaborative game of Pokemon on Discord [3]
IMO Makefiles are great if you have a few small targets. If you're looking at more than >50 lines, if your project uses many languages, or you need to run targets in a Docker container, then Earthly is a great choice.
[0]: https://earthly.dev/
[1]: https://p3m.dev/
[2]: https://github.com/shepherdjerred/macos-cross-compiler
[3]: https://github.com/shepherdjerred/discord-plays-pokemon
-
Show HN: dockerc ā Docker image to static executable "compiler"
It will depend heavily on the docker image you're trying to ship. For example with macos-cross-compiler[0] the resulting binary is over 2GB. With python:alpine[1] it's only 25MB.
Because image isn't copied whether the image is 2GB or 25MB the startup time will be nearly instantaneous for both.
The runtime adds 6-7MB of overhead although I expect that this can be reduced to less than 3MB with some work.
[0]: https://github.com/shepherdjerred/macos-cross-compiler
- So You Want to Ship a Command-Line Tool for macOS
- Show HN: macOS-cross-compiler ā Compile binaries for macOS on Linux
cargo-zigbuild
-
Show HN: macOS-cross-compiler ā Compile binaries for macOS on Linux
https://github.com/rust-cross/cargo-zigbuild
Iām curious what the blockers are for rustc to cross-compile like zig does natively.
- Cargo-zigbuild: Compile Rust using Zig as linker for easier cross compiling
- [Review] Introducing cargo-xwin: A Solution for Cross-Compiling Rust on macOS to MSVC
- Compiling Linux to Mac in CI/CD
- cargo-zigbuild 0.16 added support for (cross-)compiling macOS universal2 binaries/libraries
-
Conditional compilation to avoid cross compilation
Perhaps you can try cargo-zigbuild, it uses zig-cc for cross-compilation instead of creating a container, so it should be much more lightweight on MacOS, without all the cost of virtualization and file sharing.
- Cross-compiling simple Rust code from Mac OS X to Raspberry Pi 4
-
Future of Rust, 2023 and beyond?
I have tried, however I haven't been able to get it to work reliably (e.g. building on windows + linux on WSL works, Mac is a lot more involved; tried building for windows + linux on Mac and I couldn't get it to work at all); I've had some luck using zigbuild but that too doesn't seem to work for Mac.
-
C2Rust Transpiler
Zig also takes this approach, and even exposes its C compiler (which if I recall correctly is basically Clang plus diverse sysroots and other customisation out of the box) as a separate `zig cc`.
I do a lot of work in Rust, and cross-compilation can be a pain when you have a lot of C dependencies. Fortunately https://github.com/messense/cargo-zigbuild exists. It sounds crazy, but using Zig's inbuilt C compiler to help build my Rust projects has been the smoothest option I've found.
I can't help but wonder if it would be worth it for Rust to follow D and Zig by shipping its own inbuilt C compiler, even if they still want to also support external C toolchains. It should be roughly the same effort as it was for Zig, given that they both use LLVM.
-
Short story of Rust being amazing yet again (because it compiles on different architectures effortlessly)
Wait until you start using cargo zig-build. Suddenly it becomes way better than Go's cross compiler because you can seamlessly cross-compile rust AND C (thanks to Zig compiler of course). https://github.com/messense/cargo-zigbuild
What are some alternatives?
dockerc - container image to single executable compiler
zig - General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software.
enroot - A simple yet powerful tool to turn traditional container/OS images into unprivileged sandboxes.
rust.aws-cdk-lambda - A CDK (v2) Construct Library for AWS Lambda in Rust
dockcross - Cross compiling toolchains in Docker images
aws-lambda-rust-runtime - A Rust runtime for AWS Lambda
serverless-rust-demo - Sample serverless application written in Rust
terminal-typeracer
doom - DOOM translated from C to V.
ci - AppVeyor community support repository
embed-c - Embed C code at compile time inside Rust using C2Rust
meta-debian - Meta-layer for Poky to build embedded Linux environments by Debian's source codes