4 ms·
The port of libstd linked in the article still uses rustix as a separate crate. In any case, I hope it remains separate. Third-party no_std code would benefit
by Arnavion 5y ago
The port of libstd linked in the article still uses rustix as a separate crate.
In any case, I hope it remains separate. Third-party no_std code would benefit from it.
- ansible 5y agoI am under the impression that no-std code is primarily the concern of embedded systems that might not have much of an OS [1] at all, nevermind a suite of system calls to Linux. [1] Like a typical RTOS, that may provide some basic communication primitives, thread creation, and a hardware abstraction layer (HAL).
- roblabla 5y agoThat is nor necessarily the case. Embedded is a big user, but there are other reasons to use no_std, such as explicitly wanting to avoid heap allocations, or wanting greater control over the native APIs being called.
- sitkack 5y agoAlso Wasm support (can be viewed as a kind of embedded) and better portability. Anything that helps one separate the platform and more precisely define the platform boundary the better. Libc is necessary, but not good.