polonius VS llvm-project

Correctness prover which uses lifetimes (Polonius).

And, well, polonius (Rust borrow checker magic) I believe is built on datalog-ish concepts: https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius

There is also polonius (https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius) which should replace the borrow checker but does not receive a lot of development resources.

This is eventually going to be a feature-complete compiler, targeting a specific rustc version. I believe the plan is to use polonius [1], presumably as an "optional" feature so they can build a stage 1 without it, use that to build polonius, then build the final compiler with it included.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius

E.g. there you may just stop using current borrow-checker and switch to Polonius.

The borrow checker is too dumb (https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius) fixes a lot of this.

It looks like an official borrow checker implementation called Polonius uses it as a dependency, so it makes sense: https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius/blob/981785c101b68ff54...

If you click around a little, you end up on a blog post with this tidbit:

> This project got put together rather suddenly, in response to some work the Rust folks are doing[1] on their new and improved borrow checker.

I don't think I could tell you more than "Frank wrote it to help rust folks who were previously doing work with differential-dataflow directly."

1. https://github.com/rust-lang/polonius/pull/36#issuecomment-3...

Good news is that there's also works going on to relax the restrictions, like polonius. But it seems that it still have a long way to go before it can land in stable Rust...

GCC-rs isn't intended for bootstrapping, it is intended to be an actual fully featured Rust compiler in the future, mrustc is a Rust compiler intended for bootstrapping though. GCC-rs is still very early targeting an older version of the reference compiler without things like a borrow checker, but that's not going to be the case forever. The GCC-rs folks have expressed interest in re-using the borrow checker library used by the reference compiler called polonius enabling them to relatively easily add borrow checking.

'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...

• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift