← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Zhiqiang Yuan, Chong Wang, Zhenhao Zhou, Junwei Liu, Xin Peng

Where Does the Performance Go? Understanding and Recovering Performance Regressions in C-to-Rust Translation

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2610. 23044v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rust is increasingly adopted as a memory-safe successor to C, and transpilers such as \crust{} can migrate entire C projects while preserving their behavior.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Oct 12

Solving VeriContest with a Lean-Backed Rust Verifier

The paper reports that all 1,325 theorems from the VeriContest benchmark—comprising 1,007 competitive‑programming problems in Rust with Verus specifications—were successfully proved using Rust‑Prover, a Lean 4‑based verifier. The authors translated each Verus specification and Rust program into Lean, then used Lean’s kernel to confirm the proofs, achieving a 70% first‑iteration success rate and completing 1,259 proofs in under 32 hours on Claude Opus 5.5. The translated Lean programs matched the original Rust outputs on 21,413 benchmark test cases, and the study also compared performance across multiple large‑language‑model settings, noting that higher reasoning effort increased cost without improving proof counts.

By Traian Serbanuta, Jun Xu, Andrei Stefanescu, Cosmin Radoi
llmsagentsbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Aug 17

Fine-Tuning Qwen3-27B for C-to-Rust Code Translation: A Three-Stage Curriculum of Pretraining, Debugging-Aware SFT, and Task-Specific SFT

arXiv:2608. 13681v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Translating C code into safe, idiomatic Rust is a longstanding software-engineering goal because it can eliminate entire classes of memory-safety vulnerabilities while preserving the functional behavior of legacy systems.

By Pu Zhao, Changdi Yang, Yixiao Chen, Yi Gao, Yifan Cao, Haochen Zeng, Yanzhi Wang
llmsagentsfine-tuningsafety
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 7

When LLM Decompilers Recompile More and Preserve Less

The paper examines how large‑language‑model (LLM) decompilers, which produce clean, idiomatic C code, are currently evaluated mainly on recompilability and passing shipped tests. It shows that these metrics can mask significant behavioral differences: a decompiled function may recompile and pass all tests yet diverge on other inputs or lose disclosed vulnerabilities. To address this, the authors propose Decompile‑Diverge, a behavioral oracle that synthesizes drivers, fuzzes inputs, and compares the decompiled code’s behavior to the original, revealing divergences in up to 13% of cases and exposing gaps in current evaluation suites.

By Chang Liu, Edward Raff, Kristopher Micinski
llms
More like this →