HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
nikomatsakis
rfcs
Markdown2015–2021
nikomatsakis / rfcs

rfcs

RFCs for changes to Rust

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
3Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

RFCs for changes to Rust

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-10-30 15:08:30 UTC to 2021-04-29 19:51:31 UTC.

0122015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
tene·Apr 29, 2021
Hey, thanks for the response. I still feel like I'm missing an assumption, or we're otherwise talking past each other. Specifically, it sounds like you're assuming there is (or could be, or should be?) some relation between editions and ABI? I agree that Rust's current answer to your scenario is that all of the crates must have been compiled with the same compiler, but that has nothing at all to do with editions, and it's the same answer for exactly the same reasons if all of the crates were using the same language edition. Editions aren't relevant here because editions are very limited in the scope. Consider these quotes from the in-progress RFC "2021 Edition"[1]: Editions are used to introduce changes into the language that would otherwise have the potential to break existing code, such as the introduction of a new keyword. E
Read the rest
ditions are never allowed to split the ecosystem. We only permit changes that still allow crates in different editions to interoperate. The most important rule for editions is that crates in one edition can interoperate seamlessly with crates compiled in other editions. This ensures that the decision to migrate to a newer edition is a "private one" that the crate can make without affecting others, apart from the fact that it affects the version of rustc that is required, akin to making use of any new feature. The requirement for crate interoperability implies some limits on the kinds of changes that we can make in an edition. In general, changes that occur in an edition tend to be "skin deep". All Rust code, regardless of edition, is ultimately compiled to the same internal representation within the compiler. Whatever stable ABI Rust might eventually get, I expect it to be completely edition-oblivious. There should not be any way to tell by inspecting a compiled artifact in a stable Rust ABI which edition its code was written in. Having written all this, I'm now wondering if you might have instead been trying to express something about how Rust's editions are insufficient to handle the requirements that a stable ABI would address? If so, I completely agree, although I'd be confused by the comparison, as they're very different kinds of things. [1]: https://github.com/nikomatsakis/rfcs/blob/edition-2021-or-bu...
In GCC 11.1
kibwen·Jan 3, 2016
That proposal for Rust was ultimately not accepted, here's what replaced it: https://github.com/nikomatsakis/rfcs/blob/integer-overflow/t... TL;DR: There exists a compiler flag that controls whether or not arithmetic operations are dynamically checked, and if this flag is present then overflow will result in a panic. This flag is typically present in "debug mode" binaries and typically absent in "release mode" binaries. In the absence of this flag overflow is defined to wrap (there exist types that are guaranteed to wrap regardless of whether this compiler flag is set), and the language spec reserves the right to make arithmetic operations unconditionally checked in the future if the performance cost can be ameliorated.
In Google, HP, Oracle Join RISC-V – Open-source processor core gains traction
Tyr42·Oct 30, 2015
Though, I want to make clear that it is permissible for some theoretical code to stop compiling when going from 1.4 to 1.5, for example. Check out https://github.com/nikomatsakis/rfcs/blob/projection-and-lif..., for an example of this. This is because the compiler wasn't checking some cases strictly enough, and you could "hide" constraints from the compiler, causing them to fail to be enforced. They checked against crates.io when raising this RFC, and found that there were 35 crates (packages) that would be able to keep compiling if this turned into a future-compat warning, to become an error in the release afterwards. The example trait Test { fn test(&self) -> Option<Self>; // ~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Incorrectly permitted before. } Should be trait Test: Sized { fn test(&self
Read the rest
) -> Option<Self>; } Because `Option<T>` requires that `T` be `Sized`. Poking around on 1.3, I think that it would be an error to instantiate this trait with a [i8] or something that was not sized anyways, so you're not losing much by needing to declare the trait properly.
In Rust-Doom: A Doom renderer in Rust, with no unsafe code

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.