opam-repository VS llvm-project

To be completely fair, they also did the same thing on the Tezos side by including 4083 commits from the tezos/opam-repository repo, since this is just a fork of of the official ocaml/opam-repository repo.

I'm trying to add core but get the following error: info checking https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository for updates... .... resolving esy packages @opam/utoperror: Unable to read file /Users/USER/.esy/opam-repository/repo: No such file or directory resolving @opam/utop@* esy: exiting due to errors above

<><> Version-specific details <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 🐫 version 1 repository default homepage: "http://gnu.org/software/emacs" bug-reports: "https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/issues" authors: "[email protected]" maintainer: "[email protected]" license: "GPL-1.0-or-later" flags: conf synopsis Virtual package to install the Emacs editor description This package will install a system emacs if invoked via opam depext ```

Would you care to open an issue on the opam-repository, or ideally send a Pull Request implementing the improvement?

I've managed to install opam (and OCaml) directly on an Xperia XA2 running Sailfish X using setarch (see also https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/issues/14804).

According to this github comment you need to disable sandboxing by "using the --disable-sandboxing option for opam init in a fresh opam initialisation or via an opamrc. For an initialised opam, you can't use this option, but change the configuration directly in the config file by removing / empty wrap-*-command fields."

'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...