News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look. Parent comment

Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by ngrilly on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @11:40AM (#9226242)
Rust is not "runtime free". Rust needs a "minimal runtime", as stated on the project home page. You need at least a memory allocator. Even C programs are usually linked to a runtime library (like glibc).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by Jweb_Guru on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @02:21PM (#9227552)
Rust is usable with an extremely minimal runtime that approximates having no runtime at all (with #[no_std]). There are a few intrinsics you have to define, but none of them involve memory allocation. It also has a core crate that does not expose anything that requires allocation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look by ngrilly on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:38AM (#9257256)
Interesting! I was unaware of the existence of #[no_std]. My mistake. Thanks for putting it right :)
[ Parent | on HN ]