- cross-posted to:
- rust
- cross-posted to:
- rust
We just accomplished two big milestones:
- We can now compile Rust for Linux without any patches to cg_gcc.
- We can compile, run and pass all the tests from the most popular crates. This is huge!
You must log in or register to comment.
Now that you can compile and run tests, how performant are they compared to rustc+llvm? I know that thinLTO is not yet enable, and I guess a few other important optimisation, but I’m interested to know what we can already get.
Do you mean the performance of the tests themselves? If so, how would you suggest that I measure this? By just comparing the execution time?
Yes exacly. And I assume that the test suite of all of those project are long enough to average the usual jitter of wall time mesurement.
What I’m hoping to see is if rust+llvm vs rustc+gcc binary speed are within a few percents or if there is a real difference between the two (I’m expected that we eventually reach the former once thinLTO and other optimisations are implemented).
And while doing so it could also be possible to measure the difference in max RSS.
Good. I’ll attempt to do that for the next update.
Great to see that this moves forward in a steady pace. And being able to compile Rust for Linux seems like a nice milestone, especially since many objections initially against rust in the kernel was about GCC support.
This is incredible. Congrats!
