IPC144 VS llvm-project

Reviewing two PRs from a classmate is one of the duties for this project. The PRs, as well as my reviews, are available here and here. Both of the PRs I reviewed were really well-written and detailed, with very few mistakes. It was interesting to observe how different people approached certain changes, such as adding a svg file.

For this assignment we had to contribute to a Seneca repository. I chose the IPC144 repo.

Issue: https://github.com/Seneca-ICTOER/IPC144/issues/64 I worked on the standardized front matter across all markdown pages. This open-source project is the C language course notes of my major program.

And the reason why the web-only artifacts is still appear on the PDF page is because the --excludeSelectors option is not implemented enough. I have to add .clean-btn to the --excludeSelectors, the purpose of this is not to include the "On the page" artifact in side the PDF page. This is the final source code I have implement for this improvement and my pull request

I think I was able to do a good job meeting my goals I gave myself in my planning phase of this release. I was able to finish the issues well on schedule while balancing my other courses like I hoped and I was able to properly audit and fix both issues #122 and #123 without needing too many changes after review. What I learned from those two issues is the importance to read and checkout other issues/pull requests, especially for smaller repos. As I was told in the review for both my issues, I learned that the project recently made changes with how we would format the frontmatter. In PR #142 we no longer use the slug for pages due to inconsistency with links and we also need to include a description to follow the standardized Frontmatter as updated in PR #143.

The first issue I was working on IPC144 Course Note is about improving the usability of the PDF file generated from the website. All contents are generated inside the PDF, however, we want to get this better since some of the pictures are not showing properly, and also the web-only artifacts are still on the PDF, which we do not want it when we use the "PDF" version. convert-to-pdf.sh file would be modified a bit to accomplish this.

Issue #113

PR

As for this pull request, the code review went much more smoothly, with me having to only make minor changes to ensure that it would not cause any errors when built.

2. #issue-107

'Computer Architeture: A Quantitative Apporach" and/or more specific design types (mips, arm, etc) can be found under the Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architeture and Design.

"Getting Started with LLVM Core Libraries: Get to Grips With Llvm Essentials and Use the Core Libraries to Build Advanced Tools "

"The Architecture of Open Source Applications (Volume 1) : LLVM" https://aosabook.org/en/v1/llvm.html

"Tourist Guide to LLVM source code" : https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1453

llvm home page : https://llvm.org/

llvm tutorial : https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/

llvm reference : https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html

learn by examples : C source code to 'llvm' bitcode : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9148890/how-to-make-clan...

See

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344

https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...

You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.

> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.

Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...

Through value tracking. It's actually LLVM that does this, GCC probably does it as well, so in theory explicit bounds checks in regular C code would also be removed by the compiler.

How it works exactly I don't know, and apparently it's so complex that it requires over 9000 lines of C++ to express:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Anal...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/docs/F2...

• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift