News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The end of the kernel Rust experiment. Parent comment

Re:The end of the kernel Rust experiment by ZeWaka on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:22AM (#46215043)
Yeah, not sure what they're saying... I use bitfields in multiple of my rust projects using those macros.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The end of the kernel Rust experiment by pjmlp on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @04:10AM (#46215657)
Across binary libraries ABI, regardless of static or dynamically linked?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The end of the kernel Rust experiment by bigstrat2003 on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @01:38PM (#46221603)
Dynamic linking is not something you do in general in Rust. It's possible, but the compiler currently does not guarantee a stable ABI so it's not something one generally does.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The end of the kernel Rust experiment by maweki on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @02:29AM (#46215093)
I'm not a rust or systems programmer but I think it meant that as an ABI or foreign function interface bitfields are not stable or not intuitive to use, as they can't be declared granularily enough.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The end of the kernel Rust experiment by SAI_Peregrinus on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @10:11AM (#46218558)
C's bit-fields ABI isn't great either. In particular, the order of allocation of bit-fields within a unit and alignment of non-bit-field structure members are implementation defined (6.7.2.1). And bit-fields of types other than `_Bool`, `signed int` and `unsigned int` are extensions to the standard, so that somewhat limits what types can have bitfields.
[ Parent | on HN ]