winsafe VS gccrs

I know all that shit because I'm the author of Rust's WinSafe library, which is a safer Rust layer over native Win32, so I had to deal with a lot of shit like this.

[dependencies] winsafe = { git = "https://github.com/rodrigocfd/winsafe", features = ["kernel"] }

Externally, you can write a lot of native Windows stuff in Rust already. Personally, I'm having a lot of fun with WinSafe.

If you had such problems (which I also had in the past), I'm really interested in you opinion about WinSafe, and if it could help you solving them.

If you're after a native Windows application, WinSafe may suit your needs.

As the author of WinSafe, I can say it's tedious sometimes, but it's often very challenging, because you have to translate crazy unsafe behaviors into Rust's ownership model. It's surely hard, but also very rewarding at the end.

As the author of the WinSafe lib, I wholeheartedly agree.

I don't know how rare this is (or how rare it should be), but this issue warned me about this potential problem, and I had to make a huge refactoring to treat the possibility. I had to rethink many aspects of all handle implementations. It was hard work, but in the end it was worth it.

WinSafe says hello.

WinSafe, for example (which attemps to be a safe layer over the Windows API), provides lots of RAII automations. A fine example is the BeginPaint function:

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)