Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Sep 25, 2024 0:06 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust by intelfx
Parent article: Committing to Rust in the kernel

> I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: it is unfair and disingenuous that the “new contender” is immediately required to clear the bar that nothing else was subjected to for a damn long time.

It is unfair to deliberately misstate Linux's C compiler requirements as well.

When Linux 5.15 bumped the minimum version to GCC 5.1, the latter had been available for *seven years*. (As opposed to the then-brand-new GCC 11)

to post comments

Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Sep 25, 2024 4:48 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

And when Linus presented Linux in comp.os.minix he explicitly have written: It also uses every feature of gcc I could find. And he used the most recent version of gcc he could find.

Now, that doesn't mean that then need to use bleeding version of Rust would stay with us forever, but I don't see why Rust have to be treated differently from how C was treated in the Linux bringup phase.

Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Sep 25, 2024 11:56 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)

> Now, that doesn't mean that then need to use bleeding version of Rust would stay with us forever, but I don't see why Rust have to be treated differently from how C was treated in the Linux bringup phase.

Because unlike Linus's original announcement of Linux 30-odd years ago, Linux is no longer a just-for-fun toy.

If Rust proponents claim that the quality standards/practices of yesteryear are wholly insufficient today then they can't claim "waaah we're being held to a higher standard than ysteryear" when the mirror is turned on them.

The response to the "Rust tooling is still immature and doesn't cover all use cases that some folks need" *fact* should be (and according to the _actual_ R4L devs, is) "We're still working on it; we'll get there", not "waah different standards, give us special treatment instead" or "those use cases don't matter" of the _very_ annoying fanbois that keep coming out of the woodwork.

Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Sep 25, 2024 14:15 UTC (Wed) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link]

> The response to the "Rust tooling is still immature and doesn't cover all use cases that some folks need" *fact* should be (and according to the _actual_ R4L devs, is) "We're still working on it; we'll get there", not "waah different standards, give us special treatment instead" or "those use cases don't matter" of the _very_ annoying fanbois that keep coming out of the woodwork.

Now this is a case of shifting the goalposts.

The response is, and always was, "We're still working on it and we'll get there". Nobody has ever said "waah different standards" while asking for "special treatment". The problem with different standards is merely that certain vocal people want "getting there" to happen in zero time. C did not get there in zero time, so why does Rust have to?

Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Oct 2, 2024 10:57 UTC (Wed) by taladar (subscriber, #68407) [Link] (1 responses)

Seems to me that C is a pretty immature language if you need a 9 year old compiler because some platforms are so reluctant to update that unstable mess to a newer version that they are almost 10 major versions behind the current version.

Seems if you try even a little bit portraying the facts to make the process the other side uses look bad is actually pretty easy.

Building Rust-for-Linux on stable Rust

Posted Oct 2, 2024 12:12 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> Seems to me that C is a pretty immature language if you need a 9 year old compiler because some platforms are so reluctant to update that unstable mess to a newer version that they are almost 10 major versions behind the current version.

For Linux, said 9-year-old compiler is the *minimum* required version, not the *only* version that is supported/expected to work.

(I am typing these words on a system with the most recent Linux release, compiled using the most recent GCC release)

> Seems if you try even a little bit portraying the facts to make the process the other side uses look bad is actually pretty easy.

Another thing that makes you look bad is deliberately mis-stating documented facts.