diff --git a/text/2480-liballoc.md b/text/2480-liballoc.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5ade2b0bd10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/2480-liballoc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+- Feature Name: `liballoc`
+- Start Date: 2018-06-14
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#2480](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2480)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#27783](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27783)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Stabilize the `alloc` crate.
+
+This crate provides the subset of the standard library’s functionality that requires
+a global allocator (unlike the `core` crate) and an allocation error handler,
+but not other operating system capabilities (unlike the `std` crate).
+
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+## Background: `no_std`
+
+In some environments the `std` crate is not available:
+micro-controllers that don’t have an operating system at all, kernel-space code, etc.
+The `#![no_std]` attribute allows a crate to not link to `std` implicitly,
+using `core` instead with only the subset of functionality that doesn’t have a runtime dependency.
+
+## `no_std` with an allocator
+
+The `core` crate does not assume even the presence of heap memory,
+and so it excludes standard library types like `Vec<T>`.
+However some environments do have a heap memory allocator
+(possibly as `malloc` and `free` C functions),
+even if they don’t have files or threads
+or something that could be called an operating system or kernel.
+Or one could be defined [in a Rust library][wee-alloc]
+ultimately backed by fixed-size static byte array.
+
+An intermediate subset of the standard library smaller than “all of `std`”
+but larger than “only `core`” can serve such environments.
+
+[wee-alloc]: https://github.com/rustwasm/wee_alloc
+
+## Libraries
+
+In 2018 there is a [coordinated push]
+toward making `no_std` application compatible with Stable Rust.
+As of this writing not all of that work is completed yet.
+For example, [`#[panic_implementation]`][panic-impl] is required for `no_std` but still unstable.
+So it may seem that this RFC does not unlock anything new,
+as `no_std` application still need to be on Nigthly anyway.
+
+[coordinated push]: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/embedded-wg/issues/42
+[panic-impl]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44489
+
+The immediate impact can be found in the library ecosystem.
+Many general-purpose libraries today are compatible with Stable Rust
+and also have potential users who ask for them to be compatible with `no_std` environments.
+
+For a library that is fundamentally about using for example TCP sockets or threads,
+this may not be possible.
+
+For a library that happens to only use parts of `std` that are also in `core`
+(and are willing to commit to keep doing so), this is relatively easy:
+add `#![no_std]` to the crate, and change `std::` in paths to `core::`.
+
+And here again, there is the intermediate case of a library that needs `Vec<T>`
+or something else that involves heap memory, but not other parts of `std` that are not in `core`.
+Today, in order to not lose compatibility with Stable,
+such a library needs to make compatibility with `no_std` an opt-in feature flag:
+
+```rust
+#![no_std]
+
+#[cfg(feature = "no_std")] extern crate alloc;
+#[cfg(not(feature = "no_std"))] extern crate std as alloc;
+
+use alloc::vec::Vec;
+```
+
+But publishing a library that uses unstable features, even optionally,
+comes with the expectation that it will be promptly updated whenever those features change.
+Some maintainers are not willing to commit to this.
+
+With this RFC, the library’s code can be simplified to:
+
+```rust
+#![no_std]
+
+extern crate alloc;
+
+use alloc::vec::Vec;
+```
+
+… and perhaps more importantly,
+maintainers can rely on the stability promise made by the Rust project.
+
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+## For libraries
+
+When using `#![no_std]` in a crate, that crate does not implicitly depend on `std`
+but depends on `core` instead. For example:
+
+```diff
+-use std::cell::RefCell;
++use core::cell::RefCell;
+```
+
+APIs that require a memory allocator are not available in `core`.
+In order to use them, `no_std` Rust code must explicitly depend on the `alloc` crate:
+
+```rust
+#[macro_use] extern crate alloc;
+
+use core::cell::RefCell;
+use alloc::rc::Rc;
+```
+
+Note: `#[macro_use]` imports the [`vec!`] and [`format!`] macros.
+
+[`vec!`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/alloc/macro.vec.html
+[`format!`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/alloc/macro.format.html
+
+Like `std` and `core`, this dependency does not need to be declared in `Cargo.toml`
+since `alloc` is part of the standard library and distributed with Rust.
+
+The implicit prelude (set of items that are automatically in scope) for `#![no_std]` crates
+does not assume the presence of the `alloc` crate, unlike the default prelude.
+So such crates may need to import either that prelude or specific items explicitly.
+For example:
+
+```rust
+use alloc::prelude::*;
+
+// Or
+
+use alloc::string::ToString;
+use alloc::vec::Vec;
+```
+
+## For programs¹
+
+[¹] … and other roots of a dependency graph, such as `staticlib`s.
+
+Compared to `core`, the `alloc` crate makes two additional requirements:
+
+* A global heap memory allocator.
+
+* An allocation error handler (that is not allowed to return).
+  This is called for example by `Vec::push`, whose own API is infallible,
+  when the allocator fails to allocate memory.
+
+`std` provides both of these. So as long as it is present in the dependency graph,
+nothing else is required even if some crates of the graph use `alloc` without `std`.
+
+If `std` is not present they need to be defined explicitly,
+somewhere in the dependency graph (not necessarily in the root crate).
+
+* [The `#[global_allocator]` attribute][global_allocator], on a `static` item
+  of a type that implements the `GlobalAlloc` trait,
+  defines the global allocator. It is stable in Rust 1.28.
+
+* [Tracking issue #51540] propose the `#[alloc_error_handler]` attribute
+  for a function with signature `fn foo(_: Layout) -> !`.
+  As of this writing this attribute is implemented but unstable.
+
+[global_allocator]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/alloc/#the-global_allocator-attribute
+[Tracking issue #51540]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51540
+
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+The `alloc` crate already exists (marked unstable),
+and every public API in it is already available in `std`.
+
+Except for the `alloc::prelude` module, since [PR #51569] the module structure is a subset
+of that of `std`: every path that starts with `alloc::` is still valid and point to the same item
+after replacing that prefix with `std::` (assuming both crates are available).
+
+The concrete changes proposed by this RFC are:
+
+* Stabilize `extern crate alloc;`
+  (that is, change `#![unstable]` to `#![stable]` near the top of `src/liballoc/lib.rs`).
+
+* Stabilize the `alloc::prelude` module and its contents
+  (which is only re-exports of items that are themselves already stable).
+
+* Stabilize the fact that the crate makes no more and no less than
+  the two requirements/assumptions of a global allocator and an allocation error handler
+  being provided for it, as described above.
+
+  The exact mechanism for [providing the allocation error handler][Tracking issue #51540]
+  is not stabilized by this RFC.
+
+  In particular, this RFC proposes that the presence of a source of randomness
+  is *not* a requirement that the `alloc` crate can make.
+  This is contrary to what [PR #51846] proposed,
+  and means that `std::collections::hash_map::RandomState` cannot be moved into `alloc`.
+
+[Tracking issue #27783] tracks “the `std` facade”:
+crates whose contents are re-exported in `std` but also exist separately.
+Other such crates have already been moved, merged, or stabilized,
+such that `alloc` is the only remaining unstable one.
+Therefore #27783 can serve as the tracking issue for this RFC
+and can be closed once it is implemented.
+
+[PR #51569]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51569
+[PR #51846]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51846
+[Tracking issue #27783]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27783
+
+
+The structure of the standard library is therefore:
+
+* `core`: has (almost) no runtime dependency, every Rust crate is expected to depend on this.
+* `alloc`: requires a global memory allocator,
+  either specified through the `#[global_allocator]` attribute
+  or provided by the `std` crate.
+* `std`: re-exports the contents of `core` and `alloc`
+  so that non-`no_std` crate do not need care about what’s in what crate between these three.
+  Depends on various operating system features such as files, threads, etc.
+* `proc-macro`: depends on parts of the compiler, typically only used at build-time
+  (in procedural macro crates or Cargo build scripts).
+
+
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+[Tracking issue #27783] is the tracking issue for the `alloc` crate and, historically, some other crates.
+Although I could not find much discussion of that, I believe it has been kept unstable so far
+because of uncertainty of what the eventual desired crate structure
+for the standard library is, given infinite time and resources.
+
+In particular, should we have a single crate with some mechanism for selectively disabling
+or enabling some of the crate’s components, depending on which runtime dependencies
+are available in targeted environments?
+In that world, the `no_std` attribute and standard library crates other than `std`
+would be unnecessary.
+
+By stabilizing the `alloc` crate, we commit to having it − and its public API − exist “forever”.
+
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+## Single-crate standard library
+
+The `core` and the `no_std` attribute are already stable,
+so in a sense it’s already too late for the “pure” version of the vision described above
+where `std` really is the only standard library crate that exists.
+
+It may still be [desirable] to regroup the standard library into one crate,
+and it is probably still possible.
+The `core` crate could be replaced with a set of `pub use` reexport
+to maintain compatibility with existing users.
+Whatever the eventual status for `core` is,
+we can do the same for `alloc`.
+[PR #51569] mentioned above also hopes to make this easier.
+
+While we want to leave the possibility open for it,
+at the time of this writing there are no concrete plans
+for implementing such a standard library crates unification any time soon.
+So the only alternative to this RFC seems to be
+leaving heap allocation for `no_std` in unstable limbo for the foreseeable future.
+
+[desirable]: https://aturon.github.io/2018/02/06/portability-vision/#the-vision
+
+## Require randomness
+
+[PR #51569] proposed adding a source of randomness to the other requirements
+made by the `alloc` crate.
+This would allow moving `std::collections::hash_map::RandomState`,
+and therefore `HashMap` (which has `RandomState` as a default type parameter),
+into `alloc`.
+
+This RFC chooses not to do this because it would make it difficult to use for example `Vec<T>`
+in environments where a source of randomness is not easily available.
+
+I hope that the language will eventually make it possible to have `HashMap` in `alloc`
+without a default hasher type parameter, and have the same type in `std` with its current default.
+
+Although I am not necessarily in favor
+of continuing the increase of the number of crates in the standard library,
+another solution for `HashMap` in `no_std` might be another intermediate crate
+that depends on `alloc` and adds the randomness source requirement.
+
+Additionally, with this RFC it should be possible to make https://crates.io/crates/hashmap_core
+compatible with Stable Rust.
+The downside of that crate is that although based on a copy of the same code,
+it is a different type incompatible in the type system with `std::collections::HashMap`.
+
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+I am not aware of a mechanism similar to `no_std` in another programming language.
+
+[Newlib] is a C library for “embedded” systems that typically don’t have an operating system.
+It does provide a memory allocator through `malloc` and related functions, unconditionally.
+
+[Newlib]: https://sourceware.org/newlib/
+
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+* Did I miss something in [PR #51569] that makes `alloc` not a subset of `std`?
+  A double-check from someone else would be appreciated.
+
+* Should the crate be renamed before stabilization?
+  It doesn’t have exclusivity for memory-allocation-related APIs,
+  since the `core::alloc` module exists.
+  What really characterizes it is the assumption that a global allocator is available.
+  The name `global_alloc` was proposed.
+  (Although the crate doesn’t only contain the global allocator itself.)
+
+* ~Should the `alloc::prelude` module be moved to `alloc::prelude::v1`?
+  This would make the `alloc` module structure a subset of `std` without exception.
+  However, since this prelude is not inserted automatically,
+  it is less likely that we’ll ever have a second version of it.
+  In that sense it is closer to `std::io::prelude` than `std::prelude::v1`.~
+  Done in [PR #58933].
+
+* In addition to being a subset of `std`, should the `alloc` crate (by itself)
+  be a super-set of `core`? That is, should it reexport everything that is defined in `core`?
+  See [PR #58175] which proposes reexporting `core::sync::atomic` in `alloc::sync`.
+
+[PR #58933]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58933
+[PR #58175]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58175