Project-Level C-to-Rust Translation via Synergistic Integration of Knowledge Graphs and Large Language Models

October 13, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Zhiqiang Yuan, Wenjun Mao, Zhuo Chen, Xiyue Shang, Chong Wang, Yiling Lou, Xin Peng arXiv ID 2510.10956 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 1 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Translating C code into safe Rust is an effective way to ensure its memory safety. Compared to rule-based translation which produces Rust code that remains largely unsafe, LLM-based methods can generate more idiomatic and safer Rust code because LLMs have been trained on vast amount of human-written idiomatic code. Although promising, existing LLM-based methods still struggle with project-level C-to-Rust translation. They typically partition a C project into smaller units (\eg{} functions) based on call graphs and translate them bottom-up to resolve program dependencies. However, this bottom-up, unit-by-unit paradigm often fails to translate pointers due to the lack of a global perspective on their usage. To address this problem, we propose a novel C-Rust Pointer Knowledge Graph (KG) that enriches a code-dependency graph with two types of pointer semantics: (i) pointer-usage information which record global behaviors such as points-to flows and map lower-level struct usage to higher-level units; and (ii) Rust-oriented annotations which encode ownership, mutability, nullability, and lifetime. Synthesizing the \kg{} with LLMs, we further propose \ourtool{}, which implements a project-level C-to-Rust translation technique. In \ourtool{}, the \kg{} provides LLMs with comprehensive pointer semantics from a global perspective, thus guiding LLMs towards generating safe and idiomatic Rust code from a given C project. Our experiments show that \ourtool{} reduces unsafe usages in translated Rust by 99.9\% compared to both rule-based translation and traditional LLM-based rewriting, while achieving an average 29.3\% higher functional correctness than those fuzzing-enhanced LLM methods.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted