4 ms·

So what makes Rust impossible to port to OS/2?

by mhd 8y ago

ofrzeta 8y ago
They said "unlikely" not "impossible". I guess it is unlikely because no one is willing to put in the massive resources needed to port Rust to an archaic platform. Here's a link about porting the Rust compiler to the Haiku OS: http://rust-on-haiku.com/wiki/PortingRust http://rust-on-haiku.com/wiki/PortingRust Please note that Haiku is among the supported OSs of the LLVM compiler framework while OS/2 isn't. So unless you want to re-create a Rust compiler from scratch you would first need to port LLVM to OS/2.
- mkj 8y ago
  mrustc might be an option to avoid LLVM.
- mhd 8y ago
  Yeah, the backend not being available is certainly a showstopper, thanks. GCC being ported to every silicon-based system under the sun does blind one to the fact that that isn't necessarily true for its rivals.
  - _verandaguy 8y ago
    It probably helps that GCC was around when OS/2 and other now-archaic systems were relevant.
Arnt 8y ago
Writing an OS/2 backend for a language that uses LLVM isn't impossible, but it's hard, hard work. Writing or porting a linker, implementing the low-level parts of the Rust runtime. Fixing bugs likely requires being fluent in all of Rust, C++, LLVM IR and OS/2's variant of x86 assembly, and tracing causes from the Rust frontend through a dozen layers and subsystems until their effect show up in x86. You may think I'm exaggerating.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- golergka 8y ago
  I don't think that you're exaggerating, but writing a browser is also a lot of very hard work. And writing a browser is only writing a single application; implementing a LLVM backend, however, is supporting thousands of potential applications. Wouldn't it make much sense to raise funds towards this goal? Also, browser is one of the main attack surfaces in modern web, and writing your own browser instead of sticking with a huge project that benifits from researchers all around the globe just doesn't sound right. Especially since OS/2 has a lot of legacy use in corporations that can be targetted for an attack.
  - exikyut 8y ago
    > thousands of potential applications. > ...OS/2 ...probably not. Wouldn't mind if that weren't the case, but that's fundamentally a legal problem IMO (impossible to open source etc).

So what makes Rust impossible to port to OS/2?

by mhd 8y ago

So what makes Rust impossible to port to OS/2?

They said "unlikely" not "impossible". I guess it is unlikely because no one is willing to put in the massive resources needed to port Rust to an archaic platform. Here's a link about porting the Rust compiler to the Haiku OS: http://rust-on-haiku.com/wiki/PortingRust http://rust-on-haiku.com/wiki/PortingRust Please note that Haiku is among the supported OSs of the LLVM compiler framework while OS/2 isn't. So unless you want to re-create a Rust compiler from scratch you would first need to port LLVM to OS/2.

mkj 8y ago
mrustc might be an option to avoid LLVM.
mhd 8y ago
Yeah, the backend not being available is certainly a showstopper, thanks. GCC being ported to every silicon-based system under the sun does blind one to the fact that that isn't necessarily true for its rivals.
- _verandaguy 8y ago
  It probably helps that GCC was around when OS/2 and other now-archaic systems were relevant.

Arnt 8y ago

Writing an OS/2 backend for a language that uses LLVM isn't impossible, but it's hard, hard work. Writing or porting a linker, implementing the low-level parts of the Rust runtime. Fixing bugs likely requires being fluent in all of Rust, C++, LLVM IR and OS/2's variant of x86 assembly, and tracing causes from the Rust frontend through a dozen layers and subsystems until their effect show up in x86. You may think I'm exaggerating.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
golergka 8y ago
I don't think that you're exaggerating, but writing a browser is also a lot of very hard work. And writing a browser is only writing a single application; implementing a LLVM backend, however, is supporting thousands of potential applications. Wouldn't it make much sense to raise funds towards this goal? Also, browser is one of the main attack surfaces in modern web, and writing your own browser instead of sticking with a huge project that benifits from researchers all around the globe just doesn't sound right. Especially since OS/2 has a lot of legacy use in corporations that can be targetted for an attack.
- exikyut 8y ago
  > thousands of potential applications. > ...OS/2 ...probably not. Wouldn't mind if that weren't the case, but that's fundamentally a legal problem IMO (impossible to open source etc).