lsif-clang VS llvm-project

In the top right corner of the tooltip it will say either "Search-based" or "Precise" - in this case, you're right, we don't have the abseil-cpp repo indexed so it falls back to search-based as you describe.

We do have a C++ code indexer in beta, https://github.com/sourcegraph/lsif-clang - it is based on clang but C++ indexing is notably harder to do automatically/without-setup due to the varying build systems that need to be understood in order to invoke the compiler.

Interesting because on https://lsif.dev/ I see that LSIF support for C++, which basically is just a wrapper around clangd AFAIU, is deprecated. Is there something else that replaced it?

We already have an LSIF indexer for C++ (lsif-clang); however, that is not as feature complete as the other indexers. Moreover, the codebase is forked off of Clang 10, so upgrading to newer Clang versions (and build a SCIP indexer on top of that) will be a challenge.

- Go:

Why are not all repos covered?

Because different languages have different build systems, so inferring the right build commands, dependencies etc. is not so straightforward; these are necessary per-requisites for compiler-accurate cross references. We're working on fixing this with auto-indexing: https://docs.sourcegraph.com/code_intelligence/explanations/...

For C and C++ specifically, auto-indexing is challenging because of the large variety in build systems, informal specification of dependencies (such as in a README instead of a machine-readable format), and platform-specific code.

Outside of auto-indexing, we do have an indexer for C and C++ right now (https://github.com/sourcegraph/lsif-clang) which can be run in CI; that way one can generate an index and upload it to Sourcegraph on a regular basis. It is 'Partially available' (https://docs.sourcegraph.com/code_intelligence/references/in...) right now. We're keenly aware of the interest in C++, and are working our way through different languages based on usage.

'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...