Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by saghm 165 days ago
> > someone writing a library with a costly abstraction

> That's not what happened here.

Yes it is. Where do you think the `FFISafe` type that they used came from? It's not anything inherent to how Rust does FFI; it's a type someone wrote in an attempt to try to provide an abstraction, and that abstraction happened to have a cost. There's absolutely no reason anyone has to use it in order to do FFI in Rust.
1 comments
zephen 165 days ago
The extra time was being taken up in the identical assembly language function.

Fixing it took wizardry.

link
saghm 164 days ago
The time was taken by the code around the assembly language. It was an abstraction someone wrote in a way that happened not to be efficient. The ability of someone to write a costly abstraction doesn't take away from Rust any more than the possibility of doing that in C++ would from whether C++ has them.
link
Dylan16807 164 days ago
It was caused by the code around it, but the actual CPU cycles stalled out in the assembly language, making it much harder to find the problem.

Is how I understood the post.

Anyway there's noting wrong with rust FFI. The overhead was because this function wanted to support two options and didn't implement that in the best way.

link