llvm-project VS llvm-project

I forgot to say that I use this llvm build. Just download the release and point the clangd server to it.

Xtensa support (esp32). Will be interesting how this will be for Rust and Zig support for esp32

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/llvm/lib/Targ...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/LLVM-Xtensa-Backend

https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4#issuecomm...

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/5467#issuecomment-1465...

Hopefully, in the future the installation will be simpler, as we are trying to upstream our LLVM changes (first 10 patches are already accepted!), and once we manage to upstream LLVM changes we will proceed with upstreaming our Rust fork changes.

The main discussion can be led back to this GitHub issue and this comment; fortunately, we don't need to build espressif's llvm fork anymore as they supply the clangd (this is the language server we need) and you can find the zip here. I'll briefly list down the steps required to set up vim with clangd to take advantage of clangd's features (auto-completion, linting, code refactoring ...)

In my case, it's pretty annoying that the Xtensa platform doesn't have official LLVM support. It's in progress but going very slowly.

The link to the espressive issue trackers: https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4

Xtensa. They've got a fork of LLVM that supports it that they're working toward getting upstreamed. The community has a fork of rustc that uses it (and a quickstart crate) while we wait for it to get upstreamed.

https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4 is a good example why updating llvm isn't easy and takes a lot of time.

Just to clarify - Gambit, Chicken, and Carp all compile to portable C.

I hadn't realized LLVM mainline doesn't support Xtensa. I'm surprised.

D does support Xtensa via LDC (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]...). It looks like GDC also nearly supports it, requiring only a minor patch at present.

A functioning LLVM backend does exist (https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4) and might be making very slow progress towards being merged. A quick search shows that it works for Rust. I suspect (but don't know) that it might work for Terra as well.

There's also the LLVM C backend (https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe) but I've no idea how efficient such an approach is when applied to real world embedded tasks.

'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