3 ms·

> But not everyone is interested in introducing a second toolchain, for example. Not that this invalidates your broader point about Safe C++, but this particul

> But not everyone is interested in introducing a second toolchain, for example. Not that this invalidates your broader point about Safe C++, but this particular issue could also be solved by Rust shipping clang / a frontend that can also compile C and C++.

steveklabnik 2y ago
I have long thought that rust needs to copy Zig here but nobody seems to want to do it, so…
- anp 2y ago
  I’ve often joked that rustup with a little buildscript copy/paste to use the cc crate could be the fastest way to set up a C++ toolchain and project on lots of systems, but I also haven’t received much enthusiasm on the topic from people involved more with upstream.
  - citelao 2y ago
    I did that yesterday with a project: I took a Rust package that compiled a C project, then had the Rust project generate a C-compatible DLL that I could consume in dotnet. It was so much easier (for me; I am bad at build systems) that I plan to do that for future projects. There’s just something about `cargo run`…
- evntdrvn 2y ago
  how about just having rustup bundle zig as part of its tooling… It would make getting Rust going on Windows ten times easier, among a bunch of other benefits.
- sitkack 2y ago
  pip install rust Would be awesome!
estebank 2y ago
On the one hand, I think that it would be a winning strategy. On the other, that effectively turns C++ part of the Rust language. And that is even before looking at the need to extend the Rust compiler to express things that the Rust language doesn't have/need but C++ does, like move constructors.
- gauge_field 2y ago
  I am not sure if you understand the parent correctly (or I understand your reply). They mean shipping a different C/C+ frontend (e.g. Clang) together with Rust, which does not require any change in Rust frontend
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  I don’t see how it would make C++ part of the language. Nothing in the Rust front end would need to know about C++. It’s a sub command that would passthrough clang. If you were worried about clang flag stability not being as stable as Rust, you could also include clang as part of llvm-tools. This would add an extra step to set up, but is still easier than today. Of course, in both cases there’s still the work of having rust up (or rustc, depending on the strategy) set up the sysroot. I’m not saying this is trivial to do, but it would make cross compilation so much better than today, and bring rust to parity with Zig and Go on this front.
gpderetta 2y ago
Having Rust directly import C++ would be excellent, but you still need to assign semantics to non-annotated C++ to safely reflect it in safe Rust. You could import it as unsafe rust, but it would be quite gnarly.

steveklabnik 2y ago

I have long thought that rust needs to copy Zig here but nobody seems to want to do it, so…

anp 2y ago
I’ve often joked that rustup with a little buildscript copy/paste to use the cc crate could be the fastest way to set up a C++ toolchain and project on lots of systems, but I also haven’t received much enthusiasm on the topic from people involved more with upstream.
- citelao 2y ago
  I did that yesterday with a project: I took a Rust package that compiled a C project, then had the Rust project generate a C-compatible DLL that I could consume in dotnet. It was so much easier (for me; I am bad at build systems) that I plan to do that for future projects. There’s just something about `cargo run`…
evntdrvn 2y ago
how about just having rustup bundle zig as part of its tooling… It would make getting Rust going on Windows ten times easier, among a bunch of other benefits.
sitkack 2y ago
pip install rust Would be awesome!

estebank 2y ago

On the one hand, I think that it would be a winning strategy. On the other, that effectively turns C++ part of the Rust language. And that is even before looking at the need to extend the Rust compiler to express things that the Rust language doesn't have/need but C++ does, like move constructors.

gauge_field 2y ago
I am not sure if you understand the parent correctly (or I understand your reply). They mean shipping a different C/C+ frontend (e.g. Clang) together with Rust, which does not require any change in Rust frontend
steveklabnik 2y ago
I don’t see how it would make C++ part of the language. Nothing in the Rust front end would need to know about C++. It’s a sub command that would passthrough clang. If you were worried about clang flag stability not being as stable as Rust, you could also include clang as part of llvm-tools. This would add an extra step to set up, but is still easier than today. Of course, in both cases there’s still the work of having rust up (or rustc, depending on the strategy) set up the sysroot. I’m not saying this is trivial to do, but it would make cross compilation so much better than today, and bring rust to parity with Zig and Go on this front.

gpderetta 2y ago

Having Rust directly import C++ would be excellent, but you still need to assign semantics to non-annotated C++ to safely reflect it in safe Rust. You could import it as unsafe rust, but it would be quite gnarly.