arocc VS tigerbeetle

Possible reference as it requires to use the compiler as part of language abi: https://github.com/Vexu/arocc/issues/178 Not sure, where a better thread with explanations of the flaws is.

Zig calls clang to compile C code. This doesn't add a new dependency since Zig already depends on LLVM. In the future when Zig doesn't depend as much on LLVM, there might be a reason to use a C compiler written in Zig (e.g. https://github.com/Vexu/arocc)

Bit field rules are underspecified or plain wrongly implemented, because in their edge cases clang and GCC differ in semantics. See https://github.com/Vexu/arocc/issues/178 This should be further restricted with static asserts as compiler semantics even changed with versions and doing this manually/doing code review is error prone.

You might want to contribute or look into https://github.com/Vexu/arocc, which is planned to be eventually an alternative frontend. Is arocc able to handle your use cases?

> Does this mean that y'all are open to the self-hosted compiler supporting CPU architectures unlikely to ever have LLVM support?

Yes! We won't block 1.0 on the quality of the less mainstream targets, but that's what the tier system is for - to ship a compiler that has varying levels of quality for various targets, while communicating clearly to users what kind of experience they can expect for each one.

SuperH patches are absolutely welcome.

> how is zig cc anticipated to work with a self-hosted Zig? Will there be a dependency on clang [...]?

The main distribution of Zig will be LLVM/Clang-enabled. However it is already possible to build a version of Zig that does not have these features enabled. In such case, compiling C, C++, and Objective-C code will result in an error.

However, the arocc project[1] is emerging, which, depending on a combination of how much funding ZSF gets and how much enthusiasm the unpaid contributors working in their spare time have, is looking like a promising C frontend that would be available even without LLVM/Clang. It is C only, however, with no intention of compiling C++ or Objective-C.

> would zig cc support the planned C backend?

As it is currently implemented: no. Zig invokes clang to turn C source code into object files.

However, with the arocc frontend above, this would be converting the C source code into ZIR (or perhaps AIR), which could then be lowered with any of the backends, including the (partially complete) C backend. In such case, the C output would look drastically different than the input. It would look more like an IR than natural C code that a human would write.

[1]: https://github.com/Vexu/arocc

Implementing only the language part takes like 10k LOC.

> 9. Without a C compiler, we're stuck with, wedded to, and beholden to libclang.

> I wouldn't be surprised that the eventual cost of adapting ourselves to

> libclang will exceed the cost of doing our own C compiler.

This is a really insightful point. I had to learn this the hard way :)

We might follow your lead on this, as we have done with so many other great ideas implemented in D.

Ironically, Vexu started from the other side as you, with the preprocessor mostly done, but the backend left to-do: https://github.com/Vexu/arocc

One thing that might make libclang worth the cost, however, is its ability to compile C++ code as well. On Zig's end of things, all we have to do is provide libcxx, libcxxabi, libunwind, compiler-rt, and linking, and then libclang is really pulling a lot of weight by compiling C++ code into object files. Sadly this ability is just too useful in practice to ignore. For example, LLVM itself is C++ so if Zig wants to be able to bootstrap itself, it needs this capability.

Still, I think your maneuver here is the best long-term approach to tackle this problem, and I imagine as time goes on we'll start to migrate towards D's solution here. Maybe someday the Zig distribution that does not have LLVM extensions enabled will be the more popular one!

I'll be watching the evolution of this new feature in D with great interest!

Indeed!

I was so glad to see you cite not only the Rebello paper but also Protocol-Aware Recovery for Consensus-Based Storage. When I read your first comment, I was about to reply to mention PAR, and then saw you had saved me the trouble!

UW-Madison are truly the vanguard where consensus hits the disk.

We implemented Protocol-Aware Recovery for TigerBeetle [1], and I did a talk recently at the Recurse Center diving into PAR, talking about the intersection of global consensus protocol and local storage engine. It's called Let's Remix Distributed Database Design! [2] and owes the big ideas to UW-Madison.

[1] https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNmZZLant9o

> It sounds like payments might be part of the larger concept of declarative programming (DP)

Yes, exactly! The idea with TigerBeetle's state machine [1] is to expose double-entry accounting as higher level financial primitives, so that developers can think in terms of declaring transfers from one account to another. The business logic behind the scenes is detailed, but the interfaces and data structures are simple.

[1] https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle/blob/main/src/state_ma...

> Maybe TigerBeetle could be generalized to support any multi-step distributed process?

That's part of the plan, that the distributed database framework of TigerBeetle can be used as a ”distributed Iron Man suit” to support any kind of state machine.

It's a pleasure. Let me know if you have any more questions about TigerBeetle. Our design doc is also here: https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle/blob/main/docs/DESIGN....

Surprisingly, some of the most powerful distributed systems algorithms or tools are actually deterministic. They're powerful because they can "load the dice" and so make the distributed system more intuitive for humans to reason about, more resilient to real world network faults, and do all this with more performance.

For example, Barbara Liskov and James Cowling's deterministic view change [1], which isn't plagued by the latency issues of RAFT's randomized dueling leader problem. Viewstamped Replication Revisited's deterministic view change can react to a failed primary much quicker than RAFT (heartbeat timeouts don't require randomized "padding" as they do in RAFT), commence the leader election, and also ensure that the leader election succeeds without a split vote.

Determinism makes all that possible.

Deterministic testing [2][3] is also your best friend when it comes to testing distributed systems.

[1] I did a talk on VSR, including the benefits of the view change — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wii1LX_ltIs

[2] FoundationDB are pioneers of deterministic testing — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJb8A6h9jQQ

[3] TigerBeetle's deterministic simulation tests — https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle#simulation-tests

This is the chasm problem, where people don't use a technology because people aren't using that technology, thus the technology has difficulty gaining adoption. I did see that Zig does have it's own killer app and startup that's using Zig: TigerBeattle.

Control flow statements should always be on their own lines, then it's easy to find all of them by visually scanning top-down, without needing to look all the way down each line.

[1]: https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle/blob/main/src/vsr/repl...

> In hindsight, data logic should be in the database itself.

This is the reason we are creating TigerBeetle [1] at Coil, as an open source distributed financial accounting database, with the double entry logic and financial invariants enforced through financial primitives within the database itself.

This is all the more critical for financial data, because raw data consistency is not enough for financial transactions, you also need financial consistency, not to mention immutability.

The performance of doing it this way is also easier. For example, around a million financial transactions per second on commodity hardware, with p100 latency around 10-20ms.

[1] https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle

You probably already know this — because we’ve mentioned it a few times — but Coil champions and supports open-source projects and is privacy-first, by default. Over the years, Developer Relations at Coil has championed and sponsored teams that write Open Web Documentations and projects that empower open-source developers to get paid. Coil has also incubated many open-source projects like Tigerbeetle and Rafiki.

[6] Partial logical sector reads/writes even when using O_DIRECT — https://github.com/coilhq/tigerbeetle/blob/main/src/storage....