←back to thread

277 points love2read | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.225s | source
Show context
pizlonator ◴[] No.42476714[source]
Compiling a tiny subset of C, that is. It might be so tiny as to be useless in practice.

I have low hopes for this kind of approach; it’s sure to hit the limits of what’s possible with static analysis of C code. Also, choosing Rust as the target makes the problem unnecessarily hard because Rust’s ownership model is so foreign to how real C programs work.

replies(4): >>42476809 #>>42476961 #>>42477085 #>>42477236 #
pornel ◴[] No.42476961[source]
Rust's ownership model is close enough for translating C. It's just more explicit and strongly typed, so the translation needs to figure out what a more free-form C code is trying to do, and map that to Rust's idioms.

For example, C's buffers obviously have lengths, but in C the length isn't explicitly tied to a pointer, so the translator has to deduce how the C program tracks the length to convert that into a slice. It's non-trivial even if the length is an explicit variable, and even trickier if it's calculated or changes representations (e.g. sometimes used in the form of one-past-the-end pointer).

Other C patterns like `bool should_free_this_pointer` can be translated to Rust's enum of `Owned`/`Borrowed`, but again it requires deducing which allocation is tied to which boolean, and what's the true safe scope of the borrowed variant.

replies(4): >>42477145 #>>42477151 #>>42477477 #>>42477822 #
1. jerf ◴[] No.42477477[source]
That's a classic example of an argument that looks really good from the 30,000 foot view, but when you're actually on the ground... no, basically none of that beautiful idea can actually be manifested into reality.