←back to thread

383 points hkalbasi | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
throwaway106382 ◴[] No.42814864[source]
> Mold is already very fast, however it doesn't do incremental linking and the author has stated that they don't intend to. Wild doesn't do incremental linking yet, but that is the end-goal. By writing Wild in Rust, it's hoped that the complexity of incremental linking will be achievable.

Can someone explain what is so special about Rust for this?

replies(11): >>42814916 #>>42814925 #>>42814952 #>>42814958 #>>42814975 #>>42815031 #>>42815056 #>>42815091 #>>42815564 #>>42816061 #>>42816644 #
senkora ◴[] No.42814952[source]
I assume that he is referring to "fearless concurrency", the idea that Rust makes it possible to write more complex concurrent programs than other languages because of the safety guarantees:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch16-00-concurrency.html

So the logic would go:

1. mold doesn't do incremental linking because it is too complex to do it while still being fast (concurrent).

2. Rust makes it possible to write very complex fast (concurrent) programs.

3. A new linker written in Rust can do incremental linking while still being fast (concurrent).

EDIT: I meant this originally, but comments were posted before I added it so I want to be clear that this part is new: (Any of those three could be false; I take no strong position on that. But I believe that this is the motivating logic.)

replies(2): >>42814984 #>>42814991 #
1. compiler-guy ◴[] No.42814984[source]
Both mold and lld are already very heavily concurrent. There is no fear at all there.