Unfortunately that's not quite the same thing as a standard in the sense that is meant here. A 'standard' is a written document that explains how the language should work. A standard that just says "the compiler is correct if it compiles code the way that rustc 1.xy does" is technically unambiguous in that it provides a procedure by which a compiler author can check their work, but leaves quite a bit on the table and is probably the wrong goal to aim at in the long term, even if it enables forward progress for now. (For example, we know rustc contains bugs; do we want gcc-rust to include all the bugs, or should it differ from rustc in that respect? Which behaviors are bugs, which are undesired but accepted quirks of the language, and which are intentional? For that matter, it's unreasonable to expect gcc-rust to produce binaries that are byte-for-byte identical, so what other mechanism should be used to determine equivalence?)

(btw, there's also https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/)