4 ms·
But with the Rust compiler in C the audit path would be much shorter it sounds like, and therefore be more auditable. Plus OP also wrote in the post that a goa
by codetrotter 2y ago
But with the Rust compiler in C the audit path would be much shorter it sounds like, and therefore be more auditable.
Plus OP also wrote in the post that a goal was to be able to bootstrap to Rust without first having to bootstrap to C++, so that other things can be written in Rust earlier on in the process. That could mean more of the foundation of everything being bootstrapped being written in Rust, instead of in C or C++.
- bawolff 2y agoWhat good is being slightly shorter if it us still nowhere remotely close to practical? Its kind of like saying 100 years is a lot shorter than 200 years. It might be true, but if all the time you have to dedicate is a few hours it really doesnt matter.
- jeffparsons 2y agoIt doesn't need to be _perfectly_ auditable to be worthwhile — it just needs to be more auditable than the alternatives available today.
- dwattttt 2y agoI dunno about that; suppose dozer completes its goal, and 1 year later you want to audit the bootstrap chain. Latest Rust probably won't be able to be compiled by it, so you now need to audit what, 6 months of changes to the Rust language? How many months is short enough to handle? If dozer _does_ keep getting maintained, the situation isn't exactly better either: you instead have to audit the work dozer did to support those 6 months of Rust changes.
- mkesper 2y agoIt will be hex editor -> assembler -> tinycc -> dozer -> latest rust so should absolutely be doable or am I missing something?