Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > 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'.
no_std is great for OS's and micro controllers but I don't think its something we have to worry about for QEMU. One potential area of co-operation would be the rust-vmm libraries and they definitely take advantage of the stdlibs. > > > With regards, > Daniel -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
