It's in between. It's more C like than the Claude port, but it's more Rust-y than c2rust. How much depends on how fine-grained you want to make your port and how you want to prompt your LLM. For inside of functions and internal symbols, the LLM is free to use more idiomatic construction and structures. But since the goal was to test the effectiveness of the fuzz testing, using the LLM to do the symbol translation is more of an implementation detail.
You could certainly try using c2rust to do the initial translation, and it's a reasonable idea, but I didn't find the LLMs really struggled with this part of the task, and there's certainly more flexibility this way. c2rust seemed to choke on some simple functions as well, so I didn't pursue it further.
And of course for external symbols, you're constrained by the C API, so how much leeway you have depends on the project.
You can also imagine having the LLM produce more idiomatic code from the beginning, but that can be hard to square with the incremental symbol-by-symbol translation.
You could certainly try using c2rust to do the initial translation, and it's a reasonable idea, but I didn't find the LLMs really struggled with this part of the task, and there's certainly more flexibility this way. c2rust seemed to choke on some simple functions as well, so I didn't pursue it further.
And of course for external symbols, you're constrained by the C API, so how much leeway you have depends on the project.
You can also imagine having the LLM produce more idiomatic code from the beginning, but that can be hard to square with the incremental symbol-by-symbol translation.