draft VS llvm-project

I should have said the "latest standard", not "spec", if we're being technical. But EVERY bit of official material is very clear about asserting that C++23 is still a preview/in-progress, not a standard. Saying otherwise is, strictly speaking, incorrect.

https://isocpp.org/std/the-standard

https://www.iso.org/standard/79358.html

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/papers/n4951.md

[3] https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/tag/n4917

*This is a joke, but only barely so.

pdf

I'm currently going through Annex A of C++20, but I can't find the definition of "designator brace-or-equal-initializer", and couldn't find much formal information on it in an obvious way. The newest source on [decl] (https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/source/declarations.tex) also doesn't seem to have it. Am I missing anything, or is this a missing definition in the standard grammar?

> I don't have a copy of the standard at hand, can anyone quote the relevant section?

The C++ (draft) standard is on GitHub! [0] Compiling it needs Perl and some LaTeX packages, but is reasonably straightforwards otherwise. In addition, links to specific draft standards can be found on cppreference [1].

But anyways, in the first C++20 post-publication draft (N4868), the wording you're interested in is in multiple sections. Section 22.2.3 Sequence Containers [sequence.reqmts] has Table 78: Optional sequence container operations [tab:container.seq.opt] (starting on page 815), which states that a precondition of pop_back() is that empty() returns false. Section 16.3.2.4 Detailed Specifications [structure.specifications] (page 481) states:

> Preconditions: the conditions that the function assumes to hold whenever it is called; violation of any preconditions results in undefined behavior.

Therefore, calling pop_back() on an empty vector results in undefined behavior.

> Is this something that in practice is implemented in different (exception-throwing) ways?

Based on a quick glance at the major implementations (libc++ 15.0.7 at [2], MSVC at [3], libstdc++ at [4]), it looks like asserts are used. Whether those result in exceptions probably depends on whether the asserts are compiled in in the first place and how they are implemented, but it's definitely not a guaranteed exception.

[0]: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft

[1]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/links

[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-15.0.7/lib...

[3]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8dfdcc7b7bf66834a7...

[4]: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3...

Which standard specifically are you quoting there? I checked an old and a new C++ draft in https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/tree/main/papers, and in neither one did 6.3 have anything like that.

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/download/n4917/n4917.pdf (page 1, chapter 1 scope):

PRs for C++ are at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft But the discussion for a PR is via https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal

C/C++

By the way, https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/tag/n4910 , says

As far as I know, libstdc++'s representation has two advantages:

First, it simplifies the implementation of `s.data()`, because you hold a pointer that invariably points to the first character of the data. The pointer-less version needs to do a branch there. Compare libstdc++ [1] to libc++ [2].

[1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/065dddc/libstdc++-v3/...

[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a96179/libcxx/inc...

Basically libstdc++ is paying an extra 8 bytes of storage, and losing trivial relocatability, in exchange for one fewer branch every time you access the string's characters. I imagine that the performance impact of that extra branch is tiny, and massively confounded in practice by unrelated factors that are clearly on libc++'s side (e.g. libc++'s SSO buffer is 7 bytes bigger, despite libc++'s string object itself being smaller). But it's there.

The second advantage is that libstdc++ already did it that way, and to change it would be an ABI break; so now they're stuck with it. I mean, obviously that's not an "advantage" in the intuitive sense; but it's functionally equivalent to an advantage, in that it's a very strong technical answer to the question "Why doesn't libstdc++ just switch to doing it libc++'s way?"

This Ruby implementation is based on mruby and LLVM and it’s commercial software but cheap.

'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...