> To avoid having long compilations without feedback, the compiler will always emit a message after your compile-time code has been running for a while, and repeat that message after a period that doubles each time.
Is this "period" measured in statements or computer time?
> By default, the compiler will also emit a deny-by-default lint (const_eval_long_running) after a large number of steps to catch infinite loops, but you can allow(const_eval_long_running) to permit especially long const evaluation.
So the default behaviour now is to nonetheless "catch" infinite loops by default? Why not make the default behaviour to just notify a user by emitting a message after some time (as described)? If rustc "catches" infinite loops by default, how is backwards compatibility preserved with respect to `const` functions? If I split one statement into two in `const fn`, do I break BC?
> Is this "period" measured in statements or computer time?
It sounds like computer time is used now.
> So the default behaviour now is to nonetheless "catch" infinite loops by default? Why not make the default behaviour to just notify a user by emitting a message after some time (as described)?
Because lots of builds don't have a user. Having the user have to time out rustc because of this would be frustrating.
> If rustc "catches" infinite loops by default, how is backwards compatibility preserved with respect to `const` functions?
As long as the time is much larger than it takes to handle the old statement limit it is preserved.
> If I split one statement into two in `const fn`, do I break BC?
The old version might have prevented your code from compiling as mentioned in the notes.
The new version should in theory allow it if the unsplit version worked since it is based off compilation time.
Also there is an opt flag where it will go infinite
It's backwards compatible because the old behavior was to simply make long evaluations an error every time. The new system gives you the option to allow a long evaluation if you opt in
> Why not make the default behaviour to just notify a user by emitting a message after some time (as described)?
Presumably for the sake of people who blindly upgrade an automated Rust build toolchain and wouldn't be aware that this would be signing them up for potentially-unbounded build times (and therefore potentially-unbounded CI/CD service fees.)
This is huge for embedded rust where cargo Features are used heavily. One of those trial and error things that can be frustrating when learning a new library with missing notes about features.
The error messages were the first thing that really impressed me, and not only have they improved a lot over the years but clippy is a thing to add even more guidance to writing better code. Really impressive stuff.
I don't understand why compilers drop old Windows compatibility. It makes no sense to me. They emit executable code which looks the same on Windows XP or on Windows 11.
Rust platform support is tiered[0]. Tier 1 targets are automatically tested, tier 2 targets are automatically built, and tier 3 targets are best-effort. Windows 7 is tier 1 and Windows XP is tier 3; what they're going to do is change the tier 1 Windows build to 10, but the Windows XP support isn't going anywhere.
Because newer versions of kernels add new userspace APIs that can be hard to work around if it's not present. For example, Linux 3.7 added getrandom, which is a much easier way to get CSPRNG data from the kernel than /dev/urandom. With regards to Windows, I believe Windows 7 added some multithreading helpers that make mutex support much more performant compared to what you would have to do on XP or Vista.
So, no, the executable code is not the same on XP or 11.
> Currently Windows 7 and 8 are listed as Tier 1 supported platforms. However, this has not been true for a long long time. We simply do not have the testing infrastructure. And with so much software now abandoning Windows 7 and 8 (everything from Git to Go to every major browser), continuing to provide the little support that we do is only getting more difficult. There is also a lack of vendor support for these targets.
The main effect is to split out Windows 7 and Windows 8 as their own targets, such that
> it also leaves open the door for new targets that can commit to broader support
And thus
> Individuals or organisation(s) who can commit to providing some level of legacy testing and support should go through the normal process for creating new targets.
Because those people can just keep using older versions of the compiler if they need binaries to run on those platforms (easier than ever with tools like rustup), and because actually maintaining things like build farms and testing a platform takes a lot of work.
Saying you're compatible with a target means that you're testing new changes against that target so it doesn't break.
I don't think they always emit code that looks the same, otherwise Windows wouldn't have that awesome compatibility mode in their binaries, where you could run a Win10 binary as if it's a WinXP one.
I'd recommend reading the MCP[1] they linked regarding the decision as well as their target tier policy [2].
They are dropping tier 1 support for Win 7 and Win 8. That means they are no longer going to guarantee that the project builds on those platforms and passes all tests via CI.
As long as it is feasible they will probably keep CI runs for those platforms and if interested parties step up and provide sufficient maintenance support, it will remain tier 2. i.e a guarantee that it builds on those platforms via CI but not necessarily that all features are supported and guaranteed via passing tests.
If interested parties can provide sufficient maintenance that all tests continue passing, it will be tier 1 in all but name. However the rest of the development community won't waste their time with issues like Win 7 and 8's partial support for UTF-8.
And once CI stops being feasible for the compiler team to host, it'll drop down to tier 3. If there's sufficient interest from the community towards maintaining these targets, in practice you should see comparable support to with tiers 1 or 2 however now any CI will be managed externally by the community and the compiler team will stop worrying about changes that could break compilation on those targets.
TLDR: They aren't saying "it'll no longer work" but rather "if you want it to stay maintained for these targets, you have to pitch in dev hours to maintain it and eventually support the infrastructure to do this because we don't see a reason to continue doing this". So if you care for these targets, you'll have to contribute to keep it maintained.
I've worked pretty extensively with the Win32 API and Go. I needed to target Windows XP and had to use an older version of Go for stuff like reading/writing files, networking, etc. From what I could gather, newer versions of the Win32 API add abstractions that make common operations require less API calls. I remember needing to use 9 separate Win32 API calls just to bring a window to the foreground and set focus to it. So I think part of the reason Go drops support for older versions of Windows is they were able to simplify code on _their_ end by leveraging these new abstractions. I imagine Rust might be doing the same thing? This is all pure speculation and my memory is fuzzy on this, so take this with a grain of salt.
> "Rust previously limited the maximum number of statements run as part of any given constant evaluation. However, especially creative Rust code could hit these limits and produce a compiler error" [my emphasis]
Steve Klabnik one said he hoped Rust would be more like Ruby, and have some more weird projects. Maybe with this improvement, Rust can be more weird.
I like Rust. It adapts a lot of nice features that C++ is lacking.
However it doesn’t solve any problems I have at work. I routinely deploy very large C++ applications to large international companies around the world.
And I haven’t had a memory or multi-threading problem causing any production issues for as long as I remember. I routinely use Valgrind and Helgrind to make sure it stays that way.
However I do have 9000+ auto tests that push the code way beyond any possible real life customer use cases. Enabling me to make major changes and optimizations to the code and drop it into production with confidence. I haven’t had a production bug for 5+ years.
Switching to Rust won’t change that. I would still need those 9000+ tests to make sure my Rust deployment would be error free.
So my point is this: No programming language will magically make your code bug free or eradicate the need for you to use sound software engineering practices like comprehensive auto tests.
There are of course languages more powerful than Rust that will allow you to write proven correct bug free code (Agda/Idris/Coq/..) However those languages won’t prove that your code has the performance and latency needed in a real world environment for example.
So I would rather spend more time polishing and improving my auto test skills rather than investing in switching languages. My ROI will be way higher.
If reading this makes you angry and eager to defend the honour of Rust and discredit what I am saying, please understand that I have nothing against Rust. This is more a summary of my current thinking on Rust and any other new programming language wanting to take over from C++.
I would love to hear the thoughts of other experienced C++ developers who are responsible for very large C++ applications used by real customers.
I love using Rust in my toy projects (and wish my job was more open to anything but C++, but oh well). With its functional-style iterators, sum types and pattern matching, Rust lets me write code in a way that just feels natural. And the borrow checker stopped bothering me once I embraced reference-counted pointers for those cases where lifetimes are not obvious. Compilation time also hasn't been much of an issue once I moved to using dylibs for dependencies [1]. So if you want to use Rust but are wary of those problems, don't be! :)
With that said, I can't help but feel that Rust development has noticeably slowed down over the years. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work behind each release! It's just that, from my totally uninformed bystander perspective, there's been a sharp drop in people working on the language and compiler full-time since around Mozilla layoffs, and Rust still hasn't recovered from that. It's surprising and quite disappointing to see no significant manpower commitment from other corporations using Rust, like Microsoft [2] and Google [3].
As a result, while there's definitely new exciting things happening, more and more issues are piling up, many sitting unaddressed for years. Granted, it's mostly the small things that you can live without, but they all add up. Here are some examples just off the top of my head:
1. If-let chains [4] and if-let guards [5], proposed back in 2018, are still not there. I constantly encounter cases where having them would make the code much shorter and clearer. I guess that depends on what you do, though. My code is heavy on state machines and pattern matching, otherwise this may be less of an issue.
2. Const generics are still very limited (no const trait impls [6], no enums as const generic parameters [7], no float arithmetic in const [8], etc.). I understand those are hard problems, but most are known for 3-5 years by now, and there's no finishing line in sight. Comparing const in Rust to constexpr in modern C++ will leave you disappointed.
There's definitely more problems that I hit less frequently, but each compiler error linking me to some stabilization issue with years-long discussion takes away a bit of joy...
And yet I heartily recommend trying out Rust if you haven't done so yet! Behind those papercuts hides a very practical and empowering language that gives you functional constructs at high performance and with much lower chance of shooting yourself in the foot as a newbie compared to C++.
> from my totally uninformed bystander perspective, there's been a sharp drop in people working on the language and compiler full-time since around Mozilla layoffs, and Rust still hasn't recovered from that
In terms of number of commits to the rust-lang/rust repo, activity peaked in late 2019/early 2020, whereas the Mozilla layoffs took place in late 2020. Activity since late 2020 has mostly stayed stable, and remains well above where it was at any point prior to 2018: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors
In addition, I know of several former Mozillians who remain employed to work on Rust, including one who heads the Rust team at Amazon.
As far as the number of contributors to each release, it's currently hovering around an all-time average high (although a handful of past releases have anomalously high peaks): https://thanks.rust-lang.org/
The reason that progress appears slower these days is because the low-hanging feature fruit has mostly been plucked, and what's left are the harder problems. Maintenance tasks don't make for very interesting release notes. In addition, as the language matures much of the interesting feature work has shifted from the compiler/stdlib to tooling like Cargo, rust-analyzer, etc. (whose activity might not be reflected in the above graphs).
I regularly come across sensible features that are sadly nightly-on. Corresponding features on the issue tracker tend to be years old and still open. For example, the Error trait in core as opposed to only std.
Agree with many of your points. And would add to that a frustration that allocator-api and simd are still not in stable, after so many years. Two things that impact the things I do.
> With that said, I can't help but feel that Rust development has noticeably slowed down over the years. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work behind each release! It's just that, from my totally uninformed bystander perspective, there's been a sharp drop in people working on the language and compiler full-time since around Mozilla layoffs, and Rust still hasn't recovered from that. It's surprising and quite disappointing to see no significant manpower commitment from other corporations using Rust, like Microsoft [2] and Google [3].
They brought this on themselves being Leadership By Community rather than forming a working group to get a standard out. The reason C and C++ got incredibly popular was two fold:
1. There was really no other choice
2. They were rapidly adopted by a wide variety of people, competition led to standardization, and eventually convergence on a few good compilers. `mrustc` is basically the only alternative and it's only REAL use is for an alternative bootstrap story since Rust bootstrapping is still a problem.
The entire story for Rust is rather pathetic because it would appear at every turn they made the wrong choice despite having a lookback of over 50 years of compiler evolution. Which is sad, because Rust does bring a lot of very nice things.
Because the Rust team doesn't want this path (as in, they are not even entertaining the idea) you're left with a relatively small group of very brave volunteers trying to do their best to be The Standard (TM). The hope was that with adoption from Cloudflare/Amazon/Google/Facebook you'd see a similar standardization story. But it seems none of these groups are interested in the compiler itself and instead are just interested in promoting its use.
Stabilization will be a long term concern. The inclusion in the linux kernel is minimal at best, there are some limited use cases in Asahi, etc. The success of Rust is largely mythical rather than reality. The community at large is extremely vocal to the point of zealotry which also is likely driving people off of helping with the effort. There are a lot of very smart compiler developers in the C and C++ world that don't want anything to do with Rust strictly because of it's community.
Finally, it's also possible companies that may contribute more are being driven away by the politics of the core team. There was an unbelievable discussion on whether they should allow Palantir to continue to work with them because they Do Bad Things (TM). While I can respect their opinion on the subject I cannot respect the general lack of professionalism that you see from the team. While these things don't matter with small languages they do matter a lot with big ones. This lack of professionalism bleeds into every part of the language. It's time we stop talking about Rust like it's a toy language that can get away with being edgy and hip. If it wants to survive it needs to make drastic changes towards a model used by nearly every successful language for the last 50 years.
My conclusion is if Rust wants to succeed it needs to standardize, eject every member of the existing team, and aim for a more professional (e.g. not Mozilla's brand of politics) version of itself. Otherwise it's doomed to hobbytown for the rest of its days and C++ will continue to reign supreme.
Side note:
It's nice to see they dropped the politics for this set of release notes. Maybe they're learning.
> The caller has free choice over the returned lifetime, including 'static. Indeed, this function is ideally used for data that lives for the remainder of the program’s life, as dropping the returned reference will cause a memory leak.
I can see the use case of the function and from reading the commit discussion, it seems it was based on Vec::<u8>::leak() but I'm not able to understand why either of the functions are safe instead of unsafe.
[+] [-] Hirrolot|2 years ago|reply
Is this "period" measured in statements or computer time?
> By default, the compiler will also emit a deny-by-default lint (const_eval_long_running) after a large number of steps to catch infinite loops, but you can allow(const_eval_long_running) to permit especially long const evaluation.
So the default behaviour now is to nonetheless "catch" infinite loops by default? Why not make the default behaviour to just notify a user by emitting a message after some time (as described)? If rustc "catches" infinite loops by default, how is backwards compatibility preserved with respect to `const` functions? If I split one statement into two in `const fn`, do I break BC?
[+] [-] Guvante|2 years ago|reply
It sounds like computer time is used now.
> So the default behaviour now is to nonetheless "catch" infinite loops by default? Why not make the default behaviour to just notify a user by emitting a message after some time (as described)?
Because lots of builds don't have a user. Having the user have to time out rustc because of this would be frustrating.
> If rustc "catches" infinite loops by default, how is backwards compatibility preserved with respect to `const` functions?
As long as the time is much larger than it takes to handle the old statement limit it is preserved.
> If I split one statement into two in `const fn`, do I break BC?
The old version might have prevented your code from compiling as mentioned in the notes.
The new version should in theory allow it if the unsplit version worked since it is based off compilation time.
Also there is an opt flag where it will go infinite
[+] [-] connicpu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|2 years ago|reply
Presumably for the sake of people who blindly upgrade an automated Rust build toolchain and wouldn't be aware that this would be signing them up for potentially-unbounded build times (and therefore potentially-unbounded CI/CD service fees.)
[+] [-] littlestymaar|2 years ago|reply
The Rust compiler error team keeps delivering feature to make the developer experience more pleasant. Thank you so much!
[+] [-] davidhyde|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PoignardAzur|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vbezhenar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pie_flavor|2 years ago|reply
[0]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support.htm...
[+] [-] jcranmer|2 years ago|reply
So, no, the executable code is not the same on XP or 11.
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
The main effect is to split out Windows 7 and Windows 8 as their own targets, such that
> it also leaves open the door for new targets that can commit to broader support
And thus
> Individuals or organisation(s) who can commit to providing some level of legacy testing and support should go through the normal process for creating new targets.
Feel free to apply.
[+] [-] dijit|2 years ago|reply
More likely it's that they have to keep running CI pipelines on those machines, and that's painful the older the OS gets.
[+] [-] aseipp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jenadine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevi-me|2 years ago|reply
I don't think they always emit code that looks the same, otherwise Windows wouldn't have that awesome compatibility mode in their binaries, where you could run a Win10 binary as if it's a WinXP one.
[+] [-] jacoblambda|2 years ago|reply
They are dropping tier 1 support for Win 7 and Win 8. That means they are no longer going to guarantee that the project builds on those platforms and passes all tests via CI.
As long as it is feasible they will probably keep CI runs for those platforms and if interested parties step up and provide sufficient maintenance support, it will remain tier 2. i.e a guarantee that it builds on those platforms via CI but not necessarily that all features are supported and guaranteed via passing tests.
If interested parties can provide sufficient maintenance that all tests continue passing, it will be tier 1 in all but name. However the rest of the development community won't waste their time with issues like Win 7 and 8's partial support for UTF-8.
And once CI stops being feasible for the compiler team to host, it'll drop down to tier 3. If there's sufficient interest from the community towards maintaining these targets, in practice you should see comparable support to with tiers 1 or 2 however now any CI will be managed externally by the community and the compiler team will stop worrying about changes that could break compilation on those targets.
TLDR: They aren't saying "it'll no longer work" but rather "if you want it to stay maintained for these targets, you have to pitch in dev hours to maintain it and eventually support the infrastructure to do this because we don't see a reason to continue doing this". So if you care for these targets, you'll have to contribute to keep it maintained.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/651
[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/target-tier-policy.html
[+] [-] richardwhiuk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codelikeawolf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|2 years ago|reply
There also a couple of Win32 APIs used alongside the related frameworks.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] flohofwoe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drtgh|2 years ago|reply
PS: Good job Microsoft, receive our acknowledgment. Say hello to the busy telemetry guys. /s
[+] [-] zengid|2 years ago|reply
Steve Klabnik one said he hoped Rust would be more like Ruby, and have some more weird projects. Maybe with this improvement, Rust can be more weird.
[+] [-] deterministic|2 years ago|reply
However it doesn’t solve any problems I have at work. I routinely deploy very large C++ applications to large international companies around the world.
And I haven’t had a memory or multi-threading problem causing any production issues for as long as I remember. I routinely use Valgrind and Helgrind to make sure it stays that way.
However I do have 9000+ auto tests that push the code way beyond any possible real life customer use cases. Enabling me to make major changes and optimizations to the code and drop it into production with confidence. I haven’t had a production bug for 5+ years.
Switching to Rust won’t change that. I would still need those 9000+ tests to make sure my Rust deployment would be error free.
So my point is this: No programming language will magically make your code bug free or eradicate the need for you to use sound software engineering practices like comprehensive auto tests.
There are of course languages more powerful than Rust that will allow you to write proven correct bug free code (Agda/Idris/Coq/..) However those languages won’t prove that your code has the performance and latency needed in a real world environment for example.
So I would rather spend more time polishing and improving my auto test skills rather than investing in switching languages. My ROI will be way higher.
If reading this makes you angry and eager to defend the honour of Rust and discredit what I am saying, please understand that I have nothing against Rust. This is more a summary of my current thinking on Rust and any other new programming language wanting to take over from C++.
I would love to hear the thoughts of other experienced C++ developers who are responsible for very large C++ applications used by real customers.
[+] [-] rhodysurf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fordec|2 years ago|reply
It's a feature I'm eagerly keeping tabs on as it have so many hacks in my active work that will [just work] once I can use async traits.
[+] [-] timlatim|2 years ago|reply
With that said, I can't help but feel that Rust development has noticeably slowed down over the years. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work behind each release! It's just that, from my totally uninformed bystander perspective, there's been a sharp drop in people working on the language and compiler full-time since around Mozilla layoffs, and Rust still hasn't recovered from that. It's surprising and quite disappointing to see no significant manpower commitment from other corporations using Rust, like Microsoft [2] and Google [3].
As a result, while there's definitely new exciting things happening, more and more issues are piling up, many sitting unaddressed for years. Granted, it's mostly the small things that you can live without, but they all add up. Here are some examples just off the top of my head:
1. If-let chains [4] and if-let guards [5], proposed back in 2018, are still not there. I constantly encounter cases where having them would make the code much shorter and clearer. I guess that depends on what you do, though. My code is heavy on state machines and pattern matching, otherwise this may be less of an issue.
2. Const generics are still very limited (no const trait impls [6], no enums as const generic parameters [7], no float arithmetic in const [8], etc.). I understand those are hard problems, but most are known for 3-5 years by now, and there's no finishing line in sight. Comparing const in Rust to constexpr in modern C++ will leave you disappointed.
There's definitely more problems that I hit less frequently, but each compiler error linking me to some stabilization issue with years-long discussion takes away a bit of joy...
And yet I heartily recommend trying out Rust if you haven't done so yet! Behind those papercuts hides a very practical and empowering language that gives you functional constructs at high performance and with much lower chance of shooting yourself in the foot as a newbie compared to C++.
[1] https://robert.kra.hn/posts/2022-09-09-speeding-up-increment... [2] https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2023/07/12/announc... [3] https://security.googleblog.com/2021/04/rust-in-android-plat... [4] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667 [5] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114 [6] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67792 [7] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95174 [8] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57241
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
In terms of number of commits to the rust-lang/rust repo, activity peaked in late 2019/early 2020, whereas the Mozilla layoffs took place in late 2020. Activity since late 2020 has mostly stayed stable, and remains well above where it was at any point prior to 2018: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors
In addition, I know of several former Mozillians who remain employed to work on Rust, including one who heads the Rust team at Amazon.
As far as the number of contributors to each release, it's currently hovering around an all-time average high (although a handful of past releases have anomalously high peaks): https://thanks.rust-lang.org/
The reason that progress appears slower these days is because the low-hanging feature fruit has mostly been plucked, and what's left are the harder problems. Maintenance tasks don't make for very interesting release notes. In addition, as the language matures much of the interesting feature work has shifted from the compiler/stdlib to tooling like Cargo, rust-analyzer, etc. (whose activity might not be reflected in the above graphs).
[+] [-] diarrhea|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmrdporcupine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zer8k|2 years ago|reply
They brought this on themselves being Leadership By Community rather than forming a working group to get a standard out. The reason C and C++ got incredibly popular was two fold:
1. There was really no other choice
2. They were rapidly adopted by a wide variety of people, competition led to standardization, and eventually convergence on a few good compilers. `mrustc` is basically the only alternative and it's only REAL use is for an alternative bootstrap story since Rust bootstrapping is still a problem.
The entire story for Rust is rather pathetic because it would appear at every turn they made the wrong choice despite having a lookback of over 50 years of compiler evolution. Which is sad, because Rust does bring a lot of very nice things.
Because the Rust team doesn't want this path (as in, they are not even entertaining the idea) you're left with a relatively small group of very brave volunteers trying to do their best to be The Standard (TM). The hope was that with adoption from Cloudflare/Amazon/Google/Facebook you'd see a similar standardization story. But it seems none of these groups are interested in the compiler itself and instead are just interested in promoting its use.
Stabilization will be a long term concern. The inclusion in the linux kernel is minimal at best, there are some limited use cases in Asahi, etc. The success of Rust is largely mythical rather than reality. The community at large is extremely vocal to the point of zealotry which also is likely driving people off of helping with the effort. There are a lot of very smart compiler developers in the C and C++ world that don't want anything to do with Rust strictly because of it's community.
Finally, it's also possible companies that may contribute more are being driven away by the politics of the core team. There was an unbelievable discussion on whether they should allow Palantir to continue to work with them because they Do Bad Things (TM). While I can respect their opinion on the subject I cannot respect the general lack of professionalism that you see from the team. While these things don't matter with small languages they do matter a lot with big ones. This lack of professionalism bleeds into every part of the language. It's time we stop talking about Rust like it's a toy language that can get away with being edgy and hip. If it wants to survive it needs to make drastic changes towards a model used by nearly every successful language for the last 50 years.
My conclusion is if Rust wants to succeed it needs to standardize, eject every member of the existing team, and aim for a more professional (e.g. not Mozilla's brand of politics) version of itself. Otherwise it's doomed to hobbytown for the rest of its days and C++ will continue to reign supreme.
Side note:
It's nice to see they dropped the politics for this set of release notes. Maybe they're learning.
[+] [-] alberth|2 years ago|reply
~100 issues are either Critical/High/Prioritize
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues
[+] [-] geodel|2 years ago|reply
There are few good things in life unlimited. One can add above in that list now.
[+] [-] nabeelms|2 years ago|reply
> The caller has free choice over the returned lifetime, including 'static. Indeed, this function is ideally used for data that lives for the remainder of the program’s life, as dropping the returned reference will cause a memory leak.
I can see the use case of the function and from reading the commit discussion, it seems it was based on Vec::<u8>::leak() but I'm not able to understand why either of the functions are safe instead of unsafe.
[+] [-] jack1243star|2 years ago|reply
https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch15-06-reference-cycles.html
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
https://cglab.ca/%7Eabeinges/blah/everyone-poops/