Originally posted by Blademasterz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rust-Written Coreutils 0.0.25 With Improved GNU Compatibility
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
This isn't true. while yes you can save some space dynamic linking, it isn't as much as you save by building a single binary with LTO.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jacob View Post
Last week's This Week in Rust has an interesting blog post about this:
Rust compilation times is an ongoing topic that generates many discussions online1. Most people don’t really care about what exactly takes time when compiling Rust program; they just want it to be faster in general. But sometimes, you can see people pointing fingers at specific culprits, like LLVM or the borrow checker. In this post, I’ll try to examine who is the culprit in various situations, based on data gathered from a fun little experiment. Probably also offline. ↩
Contrary to a popular misconception, it's apparently not the borrow checker (or the other static checks) that takes so much time, it's the codegen.Last edited by bug77; 25 March 2024, 12:05 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bug77 View Post
Thank you, that's very informative. And a bit worrying. If LLVM has a problem generating code for Rust, that' not something LLVM guys were willing to fix in a timely fashion in the past.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
Thats a downside. It just means that overall it will get less quality contributions.
Gooder English makes things smaller difficult to belowstand.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by q66_ View Post
what would count as "having success"? ~10000 commits per year by ~40 authors and packaging close to 2000 different software on 5 CPU architectures including all major web browsers and other tricky stuff in alpha phase not enough?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by imaami View PostAre we comparing apples with apples? If we compare separate executables vs. single binary, with no other differences (i.e. both builds use dynamic linking against system libs) then yes, the single binary is more size-efficient. Otherwise it isn't guaranteed at all.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by swoorup View PostNot sure where you got the "Rust compilation is slower than C++" from. At best, they are both on par, since Rust has incremental compilation. However bulk of the time is spent in linking.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
coreutils is one thing, findutils is another etc. Busybox utilities composes a lot of "utils/tools" suites, from coreutils, to net-tools, procps, and many more. even if you were to combine all of uutils projects into a single binary it wouldn't be a complete busybox replacement, but it would be closer.
It is not directly compatible with find-utils though.
Comment
Comment