71–80 of 99 posts
Would this be useful for this too?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46265855 :
> To better port C to Rust: 3C (Checked C), c2rust, Crown ownership analysis, RustMap, c2saferrust (LLM), Laertes
C -> Checked C -> Rust
Because Checked C will annotate the raw and other C pointers first.
Have you tried Diverse Double-Compiling (DDC) to test if the official rust compiler has a backdoor? Use crustc to compile the rust source code, producing a new compiler. Then use this new compiler and the official rustc binary, both with deterministic flags, to compile the rust source code again. The two outputs should match bit for bit.
This reminds me of https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
Rust is finally memory safe enough to become C
"You have become the very thing you swore to destroy"
i believe the author is confused this is the wrong direction (jk i read the readme)
But we now all know rust is microsoft and c++ ISO. I don't think we can trust much more ISO than microsoft to produce less feature creep over the currently known planned obsolescence cycle of 5-10 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GTA VI out in Rust before C++?
Wake me up when consoles officially support Rust. Until then there's no real way around C/C++ if you want to publish a real game to real consoles. But there's https://akaganite.com so it might become possible soon™
Source: I wrote a compiler and runtime that ran .NET code (AoT compiled with LLVM) on PS3/Xbox360/Wii and shipped a few games with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the author made a Rust to C transpiler and immediately used it to transpile... the Rust compiler. I love it.
It makes sense as a porting tool, if you need to port the Rust compiler to some target that has a C compiler. But it doesn't mean rustc generates code for that target, only that you can run it there. You'd still have to teach LLVM about the target. Although that might already have been done. It's not that useful for retro computers because the Rust compiler needs too much memory for most machines of the 32-bit era.
It is said microsoft rust syntax is on the same brain damage complexity level than ISO c++. That, and I don't even talk about the technical cost of its runtime (not far from the toxicity of a jvm?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense as a porting tool, if you need to port the Rust compiler to some target that has a C compiler. But it doesn't mean rustc generates code for that target, only that you can run it there. You'd still have to teach LLVM about the target. Although that might already have been done. It's not that useful for retro computers because the Rust compiler needs too much memory for most machines of the 32-bit era.
As far as I know, ISO c++ is no better than microsoft rust. It is said microsoft rust syntax is on the same brain damage complexity level than ISO c++. That, and I don't even talk about the technical cost of its runtime (not far from the toxicity of a jvm?)
> I put my left hand in a blender. The blender won. (Still have all my fingers, just some stitches). I will not elaborate further. What a shame. I would've read an article about this.
Nobody who would code this up would be entirely sane. But I can't help thinking "these are my people" when I read this...