3 ms·
Er... the article doesn't make it clear, but I guess we're talking about cross-compilation here? So it's not "Rust" (or, as he writes later, LLVM) running on th
by rob74 5y ago
Er... the article doesn't make it clear, but I guess we're talking about cross-compilation here? So it's not "Rust" (or, as he writes later, LLVM) running on the 6502, just the code generated by the Rust compiler.
Still cool though!
- bluejekyll 5y agoDon’t most people generally mean the target binary from the compiler and not the compiler itself when someone says “see * running on this architecture”? I can see for some dynamic languages there being a destination between the two, but for compiled binaries, generally Rust on X, it doesn’t seem important if rustc also runs on X (especially when discussing micro-controllers since one would rarely run a full compiler on the chip itself).
- rob74 5y agoWell, when someone says "see Doom running on this architecture", they usually do mean that Doom is running on the architecture. So "Rust for the MOS 6502" or something like that would have been better. But yeah, maybe I'm too nitpicky and unfair to a non-native speaker...
- fmakunbound 5y ago> Don’t most people And the rest are Forth users happily running interactive, extensible compilers with built in assemblers, block IO, screen editors in a multiuser, multitasking environment.
- kjs3 5y agoAll 10 of them...sure.
- ww520 5y agoSo WASM on 6502 next?