oasis VS cc99

You reminded me for trying Oasis: https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis

When you say a fork of LLVM, am I correct in assuming that you specifically mean a fork of Clang? I don't see how the compiler backend would affect support for language extensions, regardless of whether it's an exception to that such as Tcc, Cproc, the MIR C jitter, lacc, 8cc, 9cc, and chibicc. Most of those are not for production, excluding Cproc and Tcc (at least according to Suckless or Oasis).

Not a big issue for someone who maintains his own Linux version, https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis.

The code is readable and maintainable, and can be used in the Linux distro that the author maintains without pulling in a huge number of dependencies to build a C++ compiler.

https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis

https://sr.ht/~mcf/cproc/

If you're into very small linux desktops- I've had a lot of fun with Oasis: https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis

The full desktop image is 77mb

Oh dear, you definitely chose the wrong person to accuse of not auditing their code.

I'm typing this from my OpenBSD laptop, which, I assure you, I have audited extensively; but that's hardly relevant to this topic.. I just think it's funny that you would assume this of me. I'm also big on system-transparency[0] and micro systems like Oasis Linux[1] which attempt to limit things being able to hide.

Granted, nothing is perfectly secure.

But, again, besides the point entirely.

Your central thesis is that nothing is safe.

Why, then, should I not just use telegram? Or VK, or WeChat?

We have consensus in the HN community that those chat systems (especially telegram) are inherently insecure. Why?

Don't worry, I'll answer for you: Because they do not support E2EE except when specifically asked to, and because they used their own encryption.

This is enough for the security community to decide that Telegram is a bad product(tm).

I'm not arguing in defense of telegram, I'm just letting you know what happens to "secure messengers" under a microscope.

The same criticism has not been levied to Signal, despite them offering no more protection in real terms than HTTPS would. There are theoretical safety-nets but nothing you can concretely audit.

Your argument that "it's their code they can do what they like" holds as much water as an inverted plate, given the context that they've chosen to live under.

So, instead of attempting to talk me down with and Argument from fallacy[2]

[0]: https://www.system-transparency.org/

[1]: https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Oasis. Good luck!

I thought you might've meant Clang instead of LLVM, because there are C dialect compilers like cc99 which are based on LLVM, but not based on Clang. And of course there are many OpenCL compilers not based on GCC or Clang, although there are also many which are.

Off the top of my head, cc99 and c3 are two C dialects that both can do this.