yamt commented on PR #13245: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/13245#issuecomment-2370697685
> > does this mean to require everyone here, who might not care rust at all, to maintain certain abi compatibility for rust? i'm not sure if it's a good idea. if rust doesn't work well w/o os-level abi stability, it's a problem in rust, not nuttx. > > Not just for Rust, it's a common issue for NuttX now, image that you have a prebuilt .a library that referenced to NuttX header, and once the structure or config changed in NuttX side, you must re-compile the static library from source. > > Maybe by this approach, not only Rust but also can provide relative stable binary interface for this usage. my impression is that "recompile everything on configuration changes" isn't a big problem for many of users of nuttx. users tend to prefer better optimizations (smaller structures, lto, etc) over abi stability. as it's a big policy change with pros and cons, i suspect we should discuss this topic with a wider audience. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
