gcc
llvm-project
Our great sponsors
gcc | llvm-project | |
---|---|---|
81 | 346 | |
8,635 | 24,910 | |
2.2% | 3.9% | |
9.9 | 10.0 | |
about 2 hours ago | 7 days ago | |
C | C++ | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
gcc
-
C++ Safety, in Context
> 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?
> Take for example CVE-2022-21658 (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/01/20/cve-2022-21658.html) in Rust, related to a filesystem API. 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.
That just plain wrong. Just simply wrong. And I hope it is not a lie done on purpose.
The C++ community acknowledge the issue as soon as the Rust one posted the problem and issued a fix which is already deployed with major compilers [^1] [^2]
It does not have a CVE associated since the issue was spotted within Rust stdlib first.
This is this exact kind of FUD and zealotism that makes people hate the Rust community. I wish the community mature a bit on this aspect.
[^1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...
[^2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...
- Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))
-
Converting the Kernel to C++
Somewhat related: In 2020 gcc bumped the requirement for bootstrapping to be a C++11 compiler [0]. Would have been fun to see the kernel finally adopt C++14 as the author suggested.
I don't think that Linus will allow this since he just commented that he will allow rust in drivers and major subsystems [1].
I do found it pretty funny that even Linus is also not writing any rust code, but is reading rust code.
I would have hoped see more answers or see something in here from actual kernel developers.
0: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/5329b59a2e13dabbe20...
-
Understanding Objective-C by transpiling it to C++
> They’re saying that a lot of the restrictions makes things much harder than other languages. Hence the general problem rust has where a lot of trivial tasks in other languages are extremely challenging.
Like what? So far the discussion has revolved around rewriting a linked list, which people generally shouldn't ever need to do because it's included in the standard lib for most languages. And it's a decidedly nontrivial task to do as well as the standard lib when you don't sacrifice runtime overhead to be able to handwave object lifecycle management.
- C++: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-...
- Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/src/alloc/collections/linked_...
> No need to get defensive, no one is arguing that rust doesn’t do a lot of things well.
That's literally what bsaul is arguing in another comment. :)
> You’re talking up getting a safe implementation in C, but what matters is “can I get the same level of safety with less complexity in any language”, and the answer is yes: Java and c# implementations of a thread safe linked list are trivial.
Less perceived complexity. In Java and C# you're delegating the responsibility of lifecycle management to garbage collectors. For small to medium scale web apps, the added complexity will be under the hood and you won't have to worry about it. For extreme use cases, the behavior and overhead of the garbage collector does became relevant.
If you factor in the code for the garbage collector that Java and C# depend on, the code complexity will tilt dramatically in favor of C++ or Rust.
However, it's going to be non-idiomatic to rewrite a garbage collector in Java or C# like it is to rewrite a linked list in Rust. If we consider the languages as they're actually used, rather than an academic scenario which mostly crops up when people expect the language to behave like C or Java, the comparison is a lot more favorable than you're framing it as.
> If I wanted I could do it in c++ though the complexity would be more than c# and Java it would be easier than rust.
You can certainly write a thread-safe linked list in C++, but then the enforcement of any assumptions you made about using it will be a manual burden on the user. This isn't just a design problem you can solve with more code - C++ is incapable of expressing the same restrictions as Rust, because doing so would break compatibility with C++ code and the language constructs needed to do so don't exist.
So it's somewhat apples and oranges here. Yes, you may have provided your team with a linked list, but it will either
-
Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
GCC is also written in C++, and has had C++ deps since 2013:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-parser...
- Spitbol 360: an implementation of SNOBOL4 for IBM 360 compatible computers
- Learn to write production quality STL like classes
-
My favorite C compiler flags during development
For a more detailed explanation, see [2]. (Also the inspiration for the above example,)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
[2] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/50ddbd0282e06614b29...
-
What are does the hobbyist programmer miss comparing the paid versus free Ada ecosystem?
This is why, when considering whether to build & release a nn.2.0 macOS version, I’ll only do so if there’s a good reason: for example, GCC 12.1.0 couldn’t compile C source on macOS Ventura (version 13).
llvm-project
-
Programming from Top to Bottom - Parsing
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.
-
C++ Safety, in Context
> 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?
> Take for example CVE-2022-21658 (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/01/20/cve-2022-21658.html) in Rust, related to a filesystem API. 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.
That just plain wrong. Just simply wrong. And I hope it is not a lie done on purpose.
The C++ community acknowledge the issue as soon as the Rust one posted the problem and issued a fix which is already deployed with major compilers [^1] [^2]
It does not have a CVE associated since the issue was spotted within Rust stdlib first.
This is this exact kind of FUD and zealotism that makes people hate the Rust community. I wish the community mature a bit on this aspect.
[^1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...
[^2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...
-
Clang accepts MSVC arguments and targets Windows if its binary is named clang-cl
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...
-
Rewrite the VP9 codec library in Rust
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...
-
MiniScript Ports
• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift
-
On Avoiding Register Spills in Vectorized Code with Many Constants
Compilers also may even spill data to stack from memory, even when the original location is still available, as can be seen in this issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53348
I vaguely remember that spilling like this could allow high-end CPUs to use something similar to register renaming, i.e. stack locations like [rsp + 96] could be stay in a physical registers during function execution (high-end CPUs often have more physical registers, than logical ones), but could find good references whether such optimization exists in practice or not.
Unfortunately, I think more often than note it causes performance regressions and in some cases it may even cause unnecessary stack spilling of sensitive data: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88930#issuecomment-...
-
MRISC32 – An Open 32-Bit RISC/Vector ISA (Suitable for FPGA CPU)
Looks like llvm recently got some fusion support via -mtune now: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits/main/llvm/lib/T...
-
Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57589
Turn on fast-math, it flips the FTZ/DAZ bit for the entire application. Even if you turned it on for just a shared library!
What are some alternatives?
CMake - Mirror of CMake upstream repository
zig - General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software.
rtl8192eu-linux-driver - Drivers for the rtl8192eu chipset for wireless adapters (D-Link DWA-131 rev E1 included!)
Lark - Lark is a parsing toolkit for Python, built with a focus on ergonomics, performance and modularity.
SDL - Simple Directmedia Layer
cosmopolitan - build-once run-anywhere c library
STL - MSVC's implementation of the C++ Standard Library.
windmill - Open-source developer platform to turn scripts into workflows and UIs. Fastest workflow engine (5x vs Airflow). Open-source alternative to Airplane and Retool.
Graal - GraalVM compiles Java applications into native executables that start instantly, scale fast, and use fewer compute resources 🚀
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
dmd - dmd D Programming Language compiler