Bountysource campaign for gcc-rust?

Nathan Sidwell nathan@acm.org
Sat Dec 28 22:06:00 GMT 2019


On 12/26/19 6:26 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> The programming language Rust has become very popular over the past few years
> with many projects rewriting parts of their codebase in that language. While
> these rewrites often make the code perform faster and potentially safer, using
> Rust makes these projects less portable as Rust is limited to the architectures
> supported by LLVM which are less than the ones supported by GCC.
> 
> For this reason, people have been asking for a Rust frontend for GCC similar to
> the one for Go. Now, there are actually two independent implementation of a Rust
> frontend for GCC [1, 2] being developed and I was wondering whether it would be
> desirable to help this development with a Bountysource campaign?
> 
> I'm asking because I'm not sure whether GCC upstream would be okay having a Rust
> frontend in GCC at all and, if yes, it would be okay to have a Bountysource campaign
> for that project?

The acceptability requirements would not be affected by such a campaign.  I 
suppose the 'are you going to carry on supporting this' question could be 
colored by it, but many GCC additions have been accepted, even though they were 
by contributors explicitly paid for the addition.

Personally, a Rust FE is an exciting idea.

nathan
-- 
Nathan Sidwell



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list