libcxx VS llvm-project

If you are comparing hoops that library authors need to jump through in both languages, you can easily make the real-world comparison in the other direction, by comparing Rust's Option with C++'s std::optional (an exercise left for the reader): Rust std: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/option.rs libcxx: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/include/optional

My favorite prime number generator is the undocumented __next_prime():

https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/78d6a7767ed57b501...

There is no good reason to use this one except in a code golf environment that includes all headers by default, which is where I learned about it.

I once read a Strousroup quote amounting to "If you understand std::vector, then you understand C++". I thought surely he couldn't have meant the interface but the implentation, googled that llvm's implementation is considered nice and clean, had a look, and noped straight out of there.

C++'s STL linked list for comparison (libcxx).

https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/include/li...

> For example, accessing a std::span or a std::vector outside of its bounds would abort the program, and so would accessing an empty std::optional.

I don't really understand the difference with libc++, libstdc++ and msvc stl's respective debug modes, they already do exactly these checks :

- https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/78d6a7767ed57b501...

- https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/966010b2eb4a4c52f139b...

I mean it's not hard to read the source for your platform. On Linux/x86_64/libc++ it's roughly:

- https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/include/__...

- https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=nptl/...

I don't particularly care to comb through it to see if anything has changed, but historically it was a a little spin-CAS to make the non-contended path fast and then dropping into a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex, which is about as good as it gets for staying mostly in userspace but still letting it be scheduler aware so you're not burning up a core busy-polling, which is what often happens when people try to roll their own shit.

Google wants a bit more latitude on the heuristics and degrees of freedom around read/write ownership, so they did it like this: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/synchr... which is quite a bit better commented/legible.

If anyone reading this can do better than the `abseil-cpp` folks, not only would Google take their PR, they'd probably offer them a job.

'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...