We developed a fork of the C backend that generated VHDL, but I can't get into the implementation details here. I think the line between Rust and C is two-fold: how many machine architectures Rust has been ported to, and how often you need to call C functions from Rust, which means having to use Rust's Foreign Function Interface. Otherwise, Rust is better than C for new code and Daffodil should have a Rust backend.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 5:50 AM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org Subject: EXT: Re: Rust vs. C backend what I meant by "What did you mean by the phrase “basis for generating VHDL or System Verilog?” I suppose I was thinking you had a fork of the C backend that created Verilog/VHDL, but perhaps the pathway is via the C code output, which is then translated into Verilog/VHDL? In any case we're hearing lots more complaints about performance of Daffodil's scala back-end (and missing optimizations in the middle phases). Generating C code won't work for Cyberian software-based applications as a memory-safe language is required in these solutions. I will have to learn more about Rust. We need a memory safe language that lets you control the data representations far better than Java/Scala and JVM languages. I am curious where the line is between Rust and C, i.e., what kinds of things are possible in C that aren't possible in Rust. On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:01 PM Interrante, John A (GE Aerospace, US) < john.interra...@ge.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > My view is that when the goal is to generate parsers and unparsers > from fixed format binary data DFDL schemas, compile them to native > machine code, and execute the machine code on CPUs, Daffodil should > generate Rust. We would have preferred Rust when we started the C > code generator work. Rust is memory safe, type safe, etc. – but it > was not available for our phase 1 target CPU. > > Creating a Rust backend makes sense, although we don’t think there is > a Rust to hardware path – at least none that we are aware of. What > did you mean by the phrase “basis for generating VHDL or System Verilog?” > > John > > From: Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 5:13 AM > To: John Interrante <jinterra...@apache.org> > Cc: dev@daffodil.apache.org > Subject: EXT: Rust vs. C backend > > John, > > What's your view of generating Rust vs. Generating C from DFDL? > > Those of us working in Cyberia, well, the edict has been issued that > only memory-safe languages/runtimes are allowed to reduce risk of > cyber-attacks via things like libc flaws. > > Seems to me that Rust is the lowest level language that would be > acceptable > > I believe ultimately, the goal is to generate a useful software > implementation that does not compromise on performance, and to be a > basis for generating VHDL or System Verilog. > > I imagine you've given this some thought you can share. > Mike Beckerle > Apache Daffodil PMC | daffodil.apache.org<http://daffodil.apache.org/> > OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | > www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl > <http://www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl> > Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com< > http://www.owlcyberdefense.com/> >
