On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:21 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Another argument can be made that for Rust to be > perceived as mature, two independent implementations > should exist anyway. Many people agree, and in fact it may not be that far away. On related news, the GCC frontend for Rust is now in Compiler Explorer, e.g. https://godbolt.org/z/Wjbe5dTTb I just requested `mrustc` (the Rust transpiler written in C++ for bootstrapping purposes) to the Compiler Explorer folks to have it there too. > Fixing proper compilers may take a few years, like > 5 or 10. But who cares? We are in it for the long run I don't think it will take 5 years to see a new frontend (in particular if only for valid code). But even if it does, I don't see why we would need to wait for that to start setting up Rust for the kernel if the decision is made to do so. In fact, getting into the kernel can be an incentive for a new frontend to say "we are now able to compile the kernel". There are also other advantages to start the work now, such as working out the currently-nightly features we need in the Rust language and the standard library, getting them stabilized, submitting upstream fixes (I had to implement a couple small ones), etc. That way, when the time comes that we announce a minimum Rust stable version, all that is ready for other frontends too. > But I am not convinced that writing device drivers is the right > thing to use Rust for in the kernel. That is fair, hopefully the picture will be clearer when we get the first drivers that talk to real hardware. > There are some stuff in device driver frameworks, such as USB > hierarchies or (battery) charging state machines, that can be > really good to rewrite in Rust. But these rewrites would affect > anything with a USB port for example, including Nios II and > Motorola 68k systems. So then the compiler support for all > archs is needed first. I would avoid a rewrite, but similarly to one of the previous points, I don't see why work cannot already start if a maintainer is keen on using Rust (and able to maintain both to some degree). > I think right now the right thing for Rust is to work out-of-tree until > there is Rust support for all archs, while encouraging kernel > developers to learn the language. That would be an option, yes, but if the decision ends up being made and we are encouraging kernel developers to learn the language, what do we achieve by keeping things out-of-tree? In fact, by getting in-tree people, organizations & companies would be encouraged to give more support sooner rather than later to the LLVM backends they care about and/or to the GCC frontend for Rust. So, in a way, it can be a win for those projects too. Cheers, Miguel
