Re:Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
by jjtheblunt on Thursday November 23, 2023 @06:32PM
(#38398970)
If I understand what you’re considering, it’s that the compiler itself may have been compiled from C++ sources, so dependencies in that accounting scheme derive from transitive closure.
Alternatively i consider a compiler might only be presented as a binary, with no visibility as to its own source code, so i consider in that case just a Rust program and a binary that compiles it to a native binary linking with binary object files also of unspecified source code languages.
Re:Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
by vlovich123 on Thursday November 23, 2023 @09:40PM
(#38400166)
Sorry, we’re in agreement. My reply was meant to reply to the parent claiming there’s a C++ dependency in the tool chain when building everything from source - that’s true for the Linux kernel today since building GCC requires a C++ compiler as well.
> In August 2012, the GCC steering committee announced that GCC now uses C++ as its implementation language.[57] This means that to build GCC from sources, a C++ compiler is required that understands ISO/IEC C++03 standard. > On May 18, 2020, GCC moved away from ISO/IEC C++03 standard to ISO/IEC C++11 standard (i.e. needed to compile, bootstrap, the compiler itself; by default it however compiles later versions of C++).[58]
So for the past >10 years, gcc and clang have both had a C++ dependency. What is unique about LLVM/Clang here?