On 11/14/19 5:33 PM, Markus Gothe wrote: > How do you think that fatso library aptly named librust would fit into any > modest embedded system? Well it doesn't and you never thought of that in the > first place which makes the rest of your assumptions more damaging than any > good.
I was under the impression that rust programs don't depend on librust at all, due to being statically compiled. My instinctive reaction to porting anything to rust would instead first center around "is rust itself portable?" To which the answer is a resounding no. C compilers are everywhere, and busybox should be able to compile and run on any unix-like platform, one hopes, whereas rust is only available on platforms that the reference implementation of rust (the only implementation of rust) is available. Rust is also written in rust so you cannot bootstrap it to new platforms. Rust only has first-class support for Windows, Linux, and macOS. That being said, the size of a statically compiled rust program is also of concern. A minimally viable hello_world.rs compiled with static musl libc, and stripped, is 248K -- a minimally viable hello_world.c compiled with musl-gcc -static is 16KB. (At least it is not as bad as golang, where "hello world" is 1.4 MB, larger than the entire busybox suite with all the fatty options enabled for my desktop build.) Also google-fu says you can "cheat" by embedding non-rust inside your rust, to reduce some overhead of using rust: https://lifthrasiir.github.io/rustlog/why-is-a-rust-executable-large.html But on the whole it seems simpler to stick with what is known to work and has no known downsides. -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox