stabilizer
compiler-team
Our great sponsors
stabilizer | compiler-team | |
---|---|---|
6 | 46 | |
544 | 380 | |
- | 2.6% | |
0.0 | 6.8 | |
over 2 years ago | 9 days ago | |
Prolog | HTML | |
Apache License 2.0 | Apache License 2.0 |
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.
stabilizer
-
Poop: Performance Optimizer Observation Platform
Yes, just because it's from a team connected with the old Stabilizer tool, it doesn't mean it shares the insights and benefits of that kind of testing. At least, that's my understanding of coz, based on my knowledge of https://github.com/ccurtsinger/stabilizer
-
Why would introducing a panic cause a 20% performance increase
Nope, he is thinking of that team's previous work, stabilizer. See this talk for more information on both. It is an excellent talk.
-
Profiling without the noise caused by memory layout variations
Other researchers have tried building tools to address this issue : stabilizer. Unfortunately, stabilizer is now outdated as it hasn't been upgraded from it's LLVM 3.1 foundation. See the project here : https://github.com/ccurtsinger/stabilizer
-
"Performance Matters" - Why current approaches to evaluating and optimizing performance don't work and how to fix it.
I see a lot a value in stabilizer.
-
Criterion.rs v0.3.4 And Iai 0.1.0
Any thoughts on using stabilizer in the future?: https://github.com/ccurtsinger/stabilizer
compiler-team
-
The Rust Calling Convention We Deserve
> Also, why aren't we size-sorting fields already?
We are for struct/enum fields. https://camlorn.net/posts/April%202017/rust-struct-field-reo...
There's even an unstable flag to help catch incorrect assumptions about struct layout. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/457
- Rust proposal for ABI for higher-level languages
-
The Linux Kernel Prepares for Rust 1.77 Upgrade
Are you talking about https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688 ? I think that issue provides a lot of interesting context for this specific improvement.
-
Progress toward a GCC-based Rust compiler
And mips64, which rustc recently dumped support for after their attempt to extort funding/resources from Loongson failed:
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/648
This is the biggest problem with the LLVM mentality: they use architecture support as a means to extract support (i.e. salaried dev positions) from hardware companies.
GNU may have annoyingly-higher standards for merging changes, but once it's in there and supported they will keep it for the long haul.
-
Cargo has never frustrated me like npm or pip has. Does Cargo ever get frustrating? Does anyone ever find themselves in dependency hell?
See https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688
- Rust: Drop MIPS to Tier 3
-
There is now a proposal to switch Rustc Nightly to use a parallel frontend
The work has been going on for some time now and it seems we are quite close to it being enabled as a default for nightly builds, I am super thrilled upwards of 20% faster clean builds and possibly more are on the horizon. Hope everything works out without triggering some unseen ICE. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/681 Edit: If you want to discuss this feature reach out on Zulip
-
Rust 1.72.0
I'd recommend reading the MCP[1] they linked regarding the decision as well as their target tier policy [2].
They are dropping tier 1 support for Win 7 and Win 8. That means they are no longer going to guarantee that the project builds on those platforms and passes all tests via CI.
As long as it is feasible they will probably keep CI runs for those platforms and if interested parties step up and provide sufficient maintenance support, it will remain tier 2. i.e a guarantee that it builds on those platforms via CI but not necessarily that all features are supported and guaranteed via passing tests.
If interested parties can provide sufficient maintenance that all tests continue passing, it will be tier 1 in all but name. However the rest of the development community won't waste their time with issues like Win 7 and 8's partial support for UTF-8.
And once CI stops being feasible for the compiler team to host, it'll drop down to tier 3. If there's sufficient interest from the community towards maintaining these targets, in practice you should see comparable support to with tiers 1 or 2 however now any CI will be managed externally by the community and the compiler team will stop worrying about changes that could break compilation on those targets.
TLDR: They aren't saying "it'll no longer work" but rather "if you want it to stay maintained for these targets, you have to pitch in dev hours to maintain it and eventually support the infrastructure to do this because we don't see a reason to continue doing this". So if you care for these targets, you'll have to contribute to keep it maintained.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/651
- Experimental feature gate for `extern "crabi"` ABI
-
Prerequisites for a Windows XP 3D game engine
(The already broken) XP support was removed almost 3 years ago: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/378