libbuild2-autoconf VS llvm-project

> If make supplied it's own shell language, a simplified one, then everything would be fantastic.

We did exactly that in build2, a modern make re-thought. And we provide a bunch of standard utilities like sed, find, etc., that work the same everywhere, including Windows. Here is an example of a non-trivial recipe: https://github.com/build2/libbuild2-autoconf/blob/17f637c1ca...

> [...] treated some of the code used for various feature checks invalid and the end result was checks failing even though they should have passed - often with barely any notification to the user (the user would see a "no" instead of a "yes" in some check)

This is a perfect illustration of conceptual bankruptcy of the autoconf approach. Using compile/link tests and basing a decision on whether they succeeded or failed without distinguishing the reasons for failure will inevitably lead to silent false negatives.

If you are wondering what to and what are the alternatives, here is one approach: https://github.com/build2/libbuild2-autoconf

> (If only Clang had some sort of “noinit” variable attribute in order to allow heap to be uninitialized…)

It's attribute((loader_uninitialized)), e.g. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/test/Se...

> If you think your project will have more than half a dozen developers

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/CMakeLis...

How many active contributors does LLVM have? Hmmm

You've invented IR - eg take a look at egress targets in MLIR https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/mlir/lib/Targ...

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/instinct-te...

The compiler is LLVM

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

It's all there. For the driver/runtime everything is also open and upstreamed into the Linux kernel. The packet protocol isn't well-documented but documented enough that tinygrad managed to build their own driver from scratch.

LLD has a new option "--randomize-section-padding" for this purpose: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117653

Github issue:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127365

The article is right: it is almost never a compiler bug. I have had that experience of reporting and being wrong. It sucks.

On the other hand, I have a confirmed bug in Cland [1] and a non-rejected bug in GCC [2], so it does happen.

[1]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61133

[2]: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108448

Have been is the right word.

This thread keeps having its goal posts moved around, first is was an example, then got the spotlight of being only about clang, then I pointed out about Apple/Google original purposes, then it was something else, and yet another one.

Just head off to /r/cpp that is where hunches are coming from.

Have you at very least filtered by C++ clang only related contributions instead of LLVM ones?

Most likely not, only clicked here https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/graphs/contributors and came right away to reply.

I'm excited about -fbounds-safety coming soon: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/64360899c76c

okay can you at least tell me how the architecture of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project is "bad"?