On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:29:36PM +0300, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:37, Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > The staticlib artifact contains a bunch of mangled .o objects? > > > ============================================================== > > > [staticlibmangledobjects] Back to [TOC] > > > > > > Yes, until we compile without the `std` module library or we compile it > > > manually instead of linking it, we will have some junk in it. > > > > > > > Besides the size aspect, which potential advantage would there be to > > switch to no_std? > > We don't build a bare metal or kernel binary here, so why introduce this > > restriction willingly? > > We'll see that as we progress. Might enable more platform support, for > example. I have no definite answers here. Also, I know binary bloat is a big > complaint from people with dislike of Rust, so I pre-emptively addressed it.
Requiring 'no_std' would significantly limit what 3rd party crates QEMU can make use of, and thus would put more burden on QEMU maintainers. I don't find "binary bloat" a credible technical argument on its own either, so certainly not sufficient justification to take on the pain of 'no_std'. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
