← Back to context

Comment by pbsd

12 years ago

Using C as an output language, backed by guarantees at the higher level, could certainly work. I believe ATS [1] works this way, and can even avoid garbage collection altogether if desired. I understand it is not an easy language, though.

Nimrod [2] also generates C, but as I understand it garbage collection is unavoidable.

[1] http://www.ats-lang.org/

[2] http://nimrod-lang.org/

5 comments

pbsd

Reply
comex  12 years ago

This is one reason I'd like to see the removed LLVM C backend brought back and modernized, with Rust as the source language. Rust is safe, has no mandatory garbage collector, and has a much lower impedance mismatch with C or C++ than most higher level languages, so it should work well for libraries that are expected to integrate with C code.

  • andrewaylett  12 years ago

    I'm not clear why you'd want to compile your rust down to C, only to then compile that C again? Surely you're better off with a single compiler invocation, and taking rust straight to object code?

    I know that historically it's been easier to write a code generator than a compiler backend, but with LLVM you get the backend just as cheaply as the code gen.

    • lmb  12 years ago

      Makes it easier to target embedded arches. For example, LLVM doesn't target the MSP430 from TI, but there is a gcc fork for it. Sure, you can write a new backend for LLVM, but that's a whole different ballgame.

      This way it would be Rust -> LLVM IR -> C -> GCC for MSP430.