Re: Rust in Qemu BoF followup 2: Rust toolchain availability

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3408 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:30:20AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 03:21, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again all,
> >
> > I've now done.. or at least started... the second part of my followup
> > from the KVM Forum BoF on Rust in Qemu.
> >
> > I've extended the page at https://wiki.qemu.org/RustInQemu with
> > information on Rust toolchain availability.  However, I found I had a
> > lot more open questions on this one, so there are quite a lot of gaps.
> 
> Thanks for doing this work.
> 
> I note that we have a new host architecture loongarch64 currently
> circling to land. It looks like this is in the "Rust does not have
> support for this target" category at the moment.

AIUI this would be the new Loongson which is no longer MIPS
compatible, yes?  If so, then yes it appears not to have Rust support
at this time.

> > In particular:
> >  * I haven't so far figured out how to definitively check package
> >    information for RHEL & SLES (they're not covered by repology, and
> >    RHEL module structure confuses me, even as a RedHatter)
> >  * I'm not at all sure what criteria to use to consider something as
> >    having "good enough" rustup support, so that information is all
> >    blank so far
> 
> I guess the answer here is probably "if it has at least the
> glibc and kernel minimum versions that are documented as
> required for the target-triple in the lists at
> https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/platform-support.html then
> that's 'good enough'".

Seems reasonable.  I've updated by table based on that criterion,
though for now I haven't considered architectures - basically if the
distro matches the criterion for any architecture I've marked it as ok.

> >  * I've taken a bit of a stab in the dark about what Rust version is
> >    recent enough for our purposes (1.31.0).  I strongly suspect we're
> >    going to want to move that to something more recent, but I don't
> >    know what, which will mean revising a bunch of stuff
> 
> Hmm. The more we feel we need features that are from a new
> version of Rust the more nervous I get about whether this is
> really something we want to jump to just yet. 1.31 is less than
> 3 years old, which is pretty recent in the context of QEMU's
> own distro support policy.

That's a fair point.  I could be wrong about that.  I'm pretty sure
we'll want Rust 2018 edition support, which is why I used 1.31.0 as
the cutoff.  I know there are a bunch of things that have been
stabilized since then, but I don't know off hand of anything specific
we'll definitely want.

> >  * I'm not really convinced that the way I've formatted it is
> >     particularly good, but I haven't though of a better alternative.
> 
> I guess we might also care about the CPU architecture per distro,
> in that even if old version X of the distro supports architecture Y
> and rust today supports architecture Y, that doesn't mean that
> distro version X's shipped rust supported architecture Y.
> But we can probably reasonably say "use rustup" if there are
> corner cases like that.

Yeah.. that's where it starts to get very confusing.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]