Like any great systems programming language, it doesn’t take much of anything to get C up and running on a new platform.

In fact, a minimal C “runtime” (typically called crt0) only consists of a short prelude that zeroes out the .bss section and hands off execution to main.

That’s it!

Compared to other popular programming languages, which require substantial runtime machinery to operate (e.g: Java’s virtual machine, Go’s garbage collector, etc…), C’s extremely minimal approach to language design has allowed it to run on just about any platform.

Unfortunately, while C is effectively dependency free at the language level, the same can’t be said about its standard library.

Note: the original title of this post was “C Is Not Dependency Free”. This title didn’t reflect the actual message I was trying to convey (namely, that it can be tricky for beginners getting started with freestanding C to know which methods they can and can’t use), and was disingenuous at best, and actively misleading at worst.

To keep things simple, I’ll be focusing exclusively on C, though it should be noted that everything here applies to C++ as well. While not a strict superset of C, C++ inherits most of C’s language design and standard library, making it equally susceptible to the issues outlined below.

Owing to its strong UNIX heritage, the C standard library includes many functions and features which assume the existence of some sort of underlying OS. For example, even the humble and ubiquitous printf function relies on the existence of the write syscall, the idea of file descriptors, the stdout stream, etc…

When writing bare-metal C code, beginners often absent-mindedly #include <stdio.h> in an effort to do some quick-and-dirty printf debugging. Unfortunately, while it might appear as though everything is working fine when compiling individual translation units, things will inevitably come crashing down at link time. Raise your hand if you’ve ever been hit with a linker error that looks something like this:

/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/lib/libc.a(lib_a-writer.o): In function `_write_r':
    writer.c:(.text._write_r+0x20): undefined reference to `_write'

/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/lib/libc.a(lib_a-readr.o): In function `_read_r':
    readr.c:(.text._read_r+0x24): undefined reference to `_read'

/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/lib/libc.a(lib_a-exit.o): In function `exit':
    exit.c:(.text.exit+0x2c): undefined reference to `_exit'

/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/lib/libc.a(lib_a-isattyr.o): In function `_isatty_r':
    isattyr.c:(.text._isatty_r+0x18): undefined reference to `_isatty'

/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/lib/libc.a(lib_a-sbrkr.o): In function `_sbrk_r':
    sbrkr.c:(.text._sbrk_r+0x14): undefined reference to `_sbrk'

gcc: ld returned 1 exit status

Oops! Turns out those <stdio.h> methods rely on the existence of some underlying syscalls, but because this is bare-metal code, they’re nowhere to be found!

But wait, what about -ffreestanding? Unfortunately, it doesn’t actually mitigate the problem much. Sure, the compiler won’t use its built-in versions of common standard library routines, but it won’t stop you from writing #include <stdio.h> and trying to use them anyways!

Now, this certainly isn’t the end of the world. It’s entirely possible to appease the linker by stubbing out these syscalls with some sort of panicking implementation, and working backwards from a crash to determine which standard library method can’t be used. If you’re lucky, your toolchain might even include some built-in syscall stubs.

In this particular case, it’s pretty obvious why the <stdio.h> functions wouldn’t work when writing bare-metal software. Unfortunately, things aren’t always so simple.

For example, consider this (admittedly contrived) greet function that only calls malloc if the input buffer is too small to fit the resulting string:1

#include <string.h>
#include <malloc.h> // Uh oh!

#include "myprintf.h" // hand-rolled printf that writes data over a serial port

char* greet(char* name, size_t name_buf_len) {
    const char* greeting = "Hello ";
    const size_t greeting_len = strlen(greeting);
    const size_t name_len = strlen(name);

    const size_t final_size = name_len + greeting_len + 1;

    char* new_name;

    if (name_buf_len > final_size) {
        new_name = name;
    } else {
        new_name = malloc(final_size); // This won't work!!

    memmove(new_name + greeting_len, name, name_len);
    memcpy(new_name, greeting, greeting_len);
    new_name[final_size - 1] = '\0';

    return new_name;

int main() {
    char large_name_buf [128] = "Jimothy";
    char small_name_buf [12] = "Terrance";

    char* greet_1 = greet(large_name_buf, 128);
    char* greet_2 = greet(small_name_buf, 12);

    printf("%p\n", large_name_buf);       // 0x7ffcd8854e90
    printf("%p: %s\n", greet_1, greet_1); // 0x7ffcd8854e90: Hello Jimothy

    printf("%p\n", small_name_buf);       // 0x7fffbe5ef094
    printf("%p: %s\n", greet_2, greet_2); // ERROR: calls `malloc`!

    return 0;

It’s entirely possible that the code will work 99% of the time, but occasionally fail in the rare case when the buffer is too small, and malloc ends up getting called. malloc typically relies on the sbrk syscall, which in this case, would be stubbed out. Depending on how sbrk was stubbed out, The program might crash with an unimplemented syscall error, or malloc might return a null pointer, which this code (naively) doesn’t check for (after all, when was the last time malloc failed on your work PC? /s).

One classic workaround for these sorts of footguns is to forgo the C standard library entirely, and rewrite every method from scratch. After all, how hard can it be to implement memcpy anyway? And sure, this approach might work fine for the simpler methods, but do you really want to re-implement something like sprintf yourself? Probably not.

Things get even hairier when using external C libraries. While many C libraries proudly market themselves as “dependency-free”, they quite often implicitly mean that they are external dependency-free, and still rely on the C standard library internally. That’s not to say that there aren’t any truly dependency free C libraries as well, there most certainly are. Unfortunately, for a beginner systems programmer, the distinction between being “external” dependency free and “truly” dependency free may not always be so obvious.

And so, it’s often the case the C programmers are left with one of two options: use the standard library and be very careful not to use any methods with hidden syscall dependencies, or forgo the standard library entirely and re-write any bits of functionality they require themselves. Neither one of these options is particularly “ergonomic”, and are far from beginner friendly.

If only the C standard library had a clear “line” between all the platform-agnostic, dependency free bits of code, and all the platform-specific, “requires an OS” bits of code…

Rust’s Split Standard Library

Like any great systems programming language, it doesn’t take much of anything to get Rust up and running on a new platform.

In fact, a minimal Rust “runtime” (cheekily called r0) only consists of a short prelude that zeroes out the .bss section and hands off execution to main.

That’s it!2

Just like C, this extremely minimal approach to language design allows Rust to run on just about any platform (well, assuming there’s compiler support for it).

Where Rust differs from C is with respect to its standard library. Learning from the mistakes of C, the Rust language team made the excellent decision to split the standard library into two parts:

  • std: The full-fledged Rust standard library, “[offering] core types, like Vec<T> and Option<T>, library-defined operations on language primitives, standard macros, I/O and multithreading, among many other things.”
  • core: The small dependency-free foundation of Rust language. core “isn’t even aware of heap allocation, nor does it provide concurrency or I/O. These things require platform integration, and [the core] library is platform-agnostic.”

This seemingly innocuous implementation detail turns out to be absolutely incredible for bare-metal programmers, as it makes it possible to entirely “opt-out” of all the OS-dependent bits of the standard library. By relying on the core library directly, it’s possible to write truly portable bare-metal code free of any and all “hidden” syscalls!

Unlike C, which allows separate item declarations and implementations (e.g: declaring a method in a .h header file, and implementing it in a .c file), Rust requires that items are implemented at the same time as they are declared, making it impossible to get a linker error when writing typical Rust code.3

So, how does a “crate” (Rust lingo for library/binary) opt out of the std standard library? Why, using the handy-dandy top-level #![no_std] attribute!

As the name implies, the #![no_std] attribute signals to the Rust compiler that the crate shouldn’t link directly with std, and that it should instead link with the core library directly.

#![no_std] is also transitive down the dependency graph, so accidentally including a dependency that relies on std within a no_std project will be rejected by the compiler4. This transitive properly makes it possible to use cargo (Rust’s built-in package manager) to integrate external dependencies from, and be confident that if it compiles, it won’t inadvertently panic at runtime due to a stubbed out “hidden” syscall dependency. With Rust, using external dependencies with bare-metal code is not only possible, but thanks to cargo’s best-in-class dependency management story, it’s incredibly ergonomic as well!

To really show you the power of no_std, lets revisit the greet function from the last section. Consider the following Rust implementation, which goes out of it’s way to be as unsafe and un-idiomatic as possible. This could very well be a “first pass” implementation from a C programmer just getting their feet wet with Rust:

// #![no_std] // Un-comment this and see what happens...

use std::alloc::{alloc, Layout};

unsafe fn greet(name: *mut u8, name_buf_len: usize) -> *mut u8 {
    const GREETING: &'static [u8] = b"Hello ";

    let name_len = strlen(name);
    let final_size = name_len + GREETING.len() + 1;

    let new_name;
    if name_buf_len > final_size {
        new_name = name;
    } else {
        new_name = alloc(Layout::from_size_align(final_size, 1).unwrap());

    new_name.add(GREETING.len()).copy_from(name, name_len);
    new_name.copy_from_nonoverlapping(GREETING.as_ptr(), GREETING.len());
    *new_name.add(final_size - 1) = b'\0';


(You can play around with this example online using this Rust playground link)

Without the #![no_std] attribute, this example works just fine. Un-comment the #![no_std] attribute, and all of a sudden, the code won’t even compile!

error[E0433]: failed to resolve: use of undeclared type or module `std`
 --> src/
3 | use std::alloc::{alloc, Layout};
  |     ^^^ use of undeclared type or module `std`

Look at that!

Even this gnarly, unsafe, un-idiomatic rewrite of the raw C function benefited from Rust’s no_std guarantees, which made it literally impossible to accidentally use the alloc function (Rust’s equivalent to malloc) in a bare-metal environment!5

In conclusion, Rust’s no_std feature makes it an excellent language for beginners looking to get started with bare-metal programming.

Being able to quickly get up and running on a new platform without having to implement and/or stub-out a bunch of syscalls is awesome, and being able to write/publish/consume portable, bare-metal compatible libraries is absolutely game-changing for the traditionally hermetic world of embedded development.6

If you’re interested to learn more about using Rust on bare-metal, I’d recommend checking out the following resources:

Thanks for reading!

  1. Yes, this is a contrived example, and would be caught quickly during code review by any experienced C programmer. Unfortunately, like many things in C, this sort of mistake can easily spiral into a few hours of stressful debugging for the inexperienced programmer. ↩︎

  2. Okay, you got me. Rust also requires a #[panic_handler] routine, which gets called whenever a fatal error occurs (e.g: an assertion is broken, a checked array access operation fails, etc…). But that’s it, for real this time! ↩︎

  3. Emphasis on the word typical, which in this case, implies writing Rust using the cargo package manager, and directly linking to other Rust libraries. Rust has a very strong FFI story, and can natively link with extern C and Rust types and functions, but doing so will obviously open the door to all sorts of fun-to-debug linking errors. ↩︎

  4. As pointed out by CAD1997 on Reddit, this is not actually true, as a downstream crate could call extern crate std; directly. This is not something that can easily be linted for, but it can be mitigated by testing on a no_std target that doesn’t ship with a pre-built std. ↩︎

  5. That said, if you’re working on a platform with RAM to spare, it is possible to write allocating no_std code in Rust by linking with the alloc crate and providing a #[global_allocator] implementation. That’s quite a rabbit hole though, and this blog post is long enough as-is. ↩︎

  6. Just make sure you audit your dependencies! ↩︎