JITWatch VS llvm-project

You can kind of do the same as DISASSEMBLE in Clojure.

There are some helper projects like https://github.com/Bronsa/tools.decompiler, and on the OpenJDK JitWatch (https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/jitwatch), other JVMs have similar tools as well.

It isn't as straightforward as in Lisp, but it is nonetheless doable.

As you have encapsulated the asserts inside methods, these will be called at runtime with the arguments evaluated (for example, creating that lambda). When assertions are disabled, the C1/C2 may inline the empty method call eventually, but I don't know whether it drops the lambda instantiation as well. You can use JITWatch to see what gets inlined. The general notion though is to not worry too much. Lazy log messages are a common pattern.

You can use jitwatch for this. To see the actual assembly code generated you will also need to use a debug build of the jvm.

If you use Oracle's own IDE, it will support it out of the box, as it already did on Sun's days.

Then there are other ways depending on which JVM implementation is used.

On OpenJDK's case you can load runtime plugin to do it

https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/jitwatch

We use https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/jitwatch for this.

If you already know any JVM or .NET language, the first step would be to understand the full stack, you don't need C for that.

Many of us were doing systems programming with other languages before C went mainstream.

What you need to learn is computer architecture.

Getting back to JVM or .NET, you can get hold of JIT Watch, VS debug mode or play online in SharpLab.

Get to understand how some code gets translated into MSIL/JVM, and how those bytecodes end up being converted into machine code.

https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/jitwatch/wiki/Screenshots

https://sharplab.io/

Languages like F# and C# allow you to leave the high level comfort and also do most of the stuff you would be doing in C.

Or just pick D, which provides the same comfort and goes even further in low level capabilities.

Use them to write a toy compiler, userspace driver, talking to GPIO pins in a PI, manipulating B-Tree data stuctures directly from inodes, a TCP/IP userspace driver.

Not advocating not to learn Zig, do it still, the more languages one learns the better.

Only advocating what might be an easier transition path into learning about systems programming concepts.

You can enable a lot of debug information about how the compiler decides what to do with your code using feature flags like -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+PrintInlining. If you want to dive deeper into the world of the Hotspot JIT Compiler, have a look at JITWatch.

In what concerns HotSpot, one way would be JITWatch.

'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...