3 ms·
Not a requirement for a GCC front-end and certainly not worth sacrificing a potentially faster path to bootstrapping the official compiler implementation. You s
by strongdenial 6y ago
Not a requirement for a GCC front-end and certainly not worth sacrificing a potentially faster path to bootstrapping the official compiler implementation. You should be worried about the ease by which various systems can bootstrap and adopt the language, which is a mostly solved problem for C/C++ but not a given for Rust itself. Some maintainers will absolutely refuse bootstrapping off of binary artifacts compiled from other systems, others won't even accept 'compiled to C' artifacts.
Keeping a viable C++ implementation as part of GCC would be the smartest decision.
- CameronNemo 6y agoWho are these groups who are demanding such easy bootstrapping? OS or distro developers? Programmers working on embedded and/or safety critical systems? I know OpenBSD avoids rust because of the bootstrapping issue, but they also avoid LLVM because of a licensing issue.
- IcePic 6y agoOpenBSD uses clang/llvm on most arches by now for the system compiler.
- CameronNemo 6y agoUf. Brain fart. I meant that they avoid GCC because of licensing.
- gpderetta 6y agobootstrapping is important, but I believe that GCC already allows non-primary (i.e. optional) languages frontends to be written in other languages. The ADA front end is written in ADA for example.
- pabs3 6y agoThe Bootstrappable builds folks dislike binary artifacts so much they are implementing bootstrapping a full Linux system from only 512 bytes of machine code plus all the source code: https://bootstrappable.org/ https://bootstrappable.org/ https://bootstrapping.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page https://bootstrapping.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page