3 ms·
I know, but from what I understand there are initiatives to stabilize the ABI, which would also mean stabilizing calling conventions. I read the article in that
by weinzierl 3y ago
I know, but from what I understand there are initiatives to stabilize the ABI, which would also mean stabilizing calling conventions. I read the article in that broader context, even if it does not talk about that directly.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoThere's no proposal to stabilize the Rust ABI. There are proposals to define a separate stable ABI, which would not be the default ABI. (Such a separate stable ABI would want to plan for long-term performance, but the default ABI could continue to improve.)
- weinzierl 3y agoThanks, I never had considered that a possibility when hearing about "Rust stable ABI", but it makes a lot if sense.
- zozbot234 3y agoThere is already a separate stable ABI, it's just the C ABI. There are also multiple crates that address the issue of stable ABIs for Rust code. It's not very clear why compiler involvement would be required for this.
- tialaramex 3y agoSurely it would be nice to be able to specify using the repr mechanism that you explicitly want so-and-such ABI, in the same way that you can for the C ABI. I haven't looked at the crates you're describing, but presumably they're providing a proc macro or something instead, which is not really the right layer to do this stuff.