open-watcom-v2 VS llvm-project

https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2

In terms of ISO-complianceness, perhaps don't expect much. It basically C89 (the C99 support is still incomplete), and for C++... most likely not even C++98 - compliant.

> You will also want to start with a 16-bit C compiler like Borland Turbo C or Microsoft C

The parent post mentioned they're going to use OpenWatcom which is an actively developed[0] C and C++ compiler that targets 16bit DOS (among others).

[0] https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2

Despite the lack of feature support, the compiler is still updated to this day, and still does support DOS, Windows, Linux, and OS/2, so it's modern in the sense of maintenance, just not really standards support. If you got further questions, I can send you the Discord link. They are pretty friendly.

My advice is, when you feel you need that challenge, install DOSBox or DOSBox-X and Open Watcom C/C++, DJGPP, or gcc-ia16 and do some retro-programming. You'll also get the fun of being able to do low-level hardware twiddling and rely on DOS being so simple that it's effectively an RTOS.

If you want to build under Linux, I would recommend you look at Open Watcom. It's the best open source 16-bit x86 C compiler, IMHO.

I have recently found out that Watcom C still exists. And not just exists, but there are plenty of commits.

I should note, that OpenWatcom 2.0[1] is far better for supporting more recent C and C++ code, modern hosts and tooling, but still able to compile into 16 bit code. It is also actively maintained. Instead of MASM I recommend JWasm[2] + Jwlink[3]. Back in time I did a fork[4] of JWasm that has cleaner build system (CMake).

[1] https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2

[2] https://github.com/Baron-von-Riedesel/JWasm

[3] https://github.com/JWasm/JWlink

[4] https://github.com/JWasm/JWasm

If you want to run this in DOS: the code under src/should actually compile with this OpenWatcom fork via the -za99 flag. MiniFB however will not compile. You'd have to palettize the output pixel buffer to 256 colors and then blit it to 0xa000if you fancy that.

GCC, clang or maybe watcom? You wouldn't find it there (before invention of AGI, but that would be entirely different can of worms).

This Ruby implementation is based on mruby and LLVM and it’s commercial software but cheap.

'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...