151-byte static Linux binary in Rust

reminds me a bit of the &quot;Creating Really Teensy ELF Executables&quot; writeup[1], which got down to 45 bytes.<p>But honestly... does it really matter how small your executable is? I&#x27;d care a lot more about performance characteristics than binary size.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.muppetlabs.com&#x2F;~breadbox&#x2F;software&#x2F;tiny&#x2F;teensy.htm...</a>

This is cute, but is there a way to actually create static binaries with the standard tooling and not jumping through hoops?<p>Hello World in Rust with tip of tree (as of yesterday) is a ~500K binary that depends on glibc and friends.<p>Switching from println!() to std::io...write_str() actually made it larger!

I&#x27;d actually love to ask Linus&#x27; on his opinion of the practical uses of Rust in the Linux kernel. Does he think it could have a place, if not, why? Can those issues be addressed, etc?<p>Even if that means him dismissing me&#x2F;my question entirely lol.

That main() can still be improved... try this:<p><pre><code> push 1 pop eax mov edi, eax mov esi, 400008h push 7 pop edx syscall push 3ch pop eax xor edi, edi syscall </code></pre> It should be 10 bytes shorter.

Wow. This is seriously impressive. Rust looks like it actually might be capable as a systems programming tool to match C. I have to learn more about it now! :)

That is really impressive. Now for comedy, someone find the size of a similar program in Go.

I did something similar in D&#x2F;Win32:<p><a href="http://forum.dlang.org/post/qcbicxrtmjmwiljsyhdf@forum.dlang.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;forum.dlang.org&#x2F;post&#x2F;qcbicxrtmjmwiljsyhdf@forum.dlang...</a><p>The PE format is rather bulkier than ELF, though.

I just had a look. Installed nightly Rust on OSX and ran through it a hello world program - 307K! HW in C with gcc 4.2.1 (LLVM) makes 8.7K.