Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by bowyakka on Thursday February 18, 2021 @11:43AM
(#26182057)
Is it not a bit of a paradox that said embedded platforms matter enormously right up to, but not including the point of having toolchains ported to them and maintained? And yes while gcc can be built to produce binaries for an alpha it's not producing any bugs right?
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by saagarjha on Thursday February 18, 2021 @03:00PM
(#26184670)
The interests of people writing new language toolchains sadly does not seem to extend to supporting older platforms. This doesn't mean that they are not important, it just means that that they are not important to the people writing the new language toolchains.
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by wmf on Thursday February 18, 2021 @05:19PM
(#26186533)
It's not a matter of interest; if an embedded platform matters they should be willing to pay someone to port Rust.
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by saagarjha on Thursday February 18, 2021 @05:22PM
(#26186579)
…or they can just continue using C.
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by gpm on Thursday February 18, 2021 @07:16PM
(#26187740)
And not be surprised when open source maintainers don't go out of their way to continue supporting their poorly supported platform...
Re:Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software
by rkangel on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @08:28AM
(#26327996)
There are a few niche embedded targets that Rust might not have a toolchain for, but the vast majority are actually well covered. MIPS, PowerPC, the relevant flavours of ARM, MSP430, RISC-V.
What about embedded platforms, which tend to remain relevant (i.e. present in large numbers out in the real world) much longer than desktop or server platforms? Don't they matter? Don't they need updates, including for security, as much as any other?