Compiling Rust with GCC: an update

Posted Sep 13, 2022 17:53 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: Compiling Rust with GCC: an update by atnot
Parent article: Compiling Rust with GCC: an update

> People demanded gcc frontends for D and Go, which are mostly abandoned and nobody uses, because why would you

I have seen this claim made in several places but this isn't what happened atleast for Go. It wasn't based on any demand from anyone. Go team themselves decided to do it.

https://go.dev/blog/gccgo-in-gcc-471

"The Go language has always been defined by a spec, not an implementation. The Go team has written two different compilers that implement that spec: gc and gccgo. Having two different implementations helps ensure that the spec is complete and correct: when the compilers disagree, we fix the spec, and change one or both compilers accordingly. Gc is the original compiler, and the go tool uses it by default. Gccgo is a different implementation with a different focus, and in this post we’ll take a closer look at it."

to post comments

Compiling Rust with GCC: an update

Posted Sep 13, 2022 19:16 UTC (Tue) by atnot (guest, #124910) [Link] (1 responses)

I did indeed not know that, thanks for pointing that out! I'm not sure if it really makes things better though: A frontend for a relatively simple language with the full support of a team that earnestly believed in the specification with multiple implementations approach is today mostly irrelevant, has a single active contributor and appears to be at least half a year behind an already frozen spec. I don't hate the idea of multiple implementations, but it really gives reason to temper your expectations of what gccrs will deliver.

Compiling Rust with GCC: an update

Posted Sep 13, 2022 23:09 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

> I did indeed not know that, thanks for pointing that out! I'm not sure if it really makes things better though

It may not be better but it is more accurate. Even if one were to stick to the same conclusion they had originally, it's helpful to validate the data points. The common narrative appears to be that GCC support for various languages including Rust are being added based on unreasonable demands for some unknown but definitely odd reasons and they will inevitably fail or splinter the language and the spec based approach is an old relic of the past that must be inherently doomed one way or the other. It doesn't leave room much room for acknowledging that multiple languages do have several successfully used implementations or even a mild curiosity of why things like gccrs is even funded by commercial organizations in the first place.

> I don't hate the idea of multiple implementations, but it really gives reason to temper your expectations of what gccrs will deliver.

This is something readily acknowledged in https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Q... but this is some extend mitigated by funding and possibility of code sharing via things like polonius.