Our great sponsors
sc | gcc | |
---|---|---|
17 | 81 | |
2,163 | 8,704 | |
- | 1.9% | |
6.3 | 9.9 | |
15 days ago | 1 day ago | |
C | C | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
sc
- A simple hash table in C
- Advice for bigger c projects?
- sc - Common libraries and data structures for C
-
Hacker News top posts: May 17, 2022
Common libraries and data structures for C\ (107 comments)
-
Common libraries and data structures for C
Can someone tell me what is this line from sc_signal.c:247 in sc/signal/
If the way it is used requires the user to break the abstraction/encapsulation and manually buffer some fields in order not to break the data structure and leak memory, I would call that a bug.
There is one use of sc_array_clear() in the test code [1] which really makes it look as if it is being used in a way that I think (again, I haven't single-stepped this code, only read it) leaks memory.
I agree on the pain of everything being macros, it's more pain than it's worth I think and will likely lead to code duplication (and more pain in debugging, probably).
I would even go so far as to think that this kind of single-file design, where each file is independent of the others, makes it harder and more annoying to implement more complicated data structures.
[1]: https://github.com/tezc/sc/blob/master/array/array_test.c#L3...
-
Uthash – C macros for hash tables and more
https://github.com/tezc/sc/tree/master/map
For those who are interested in faster hashmaps, I tried bunch of hashmaps and this one performs better than others. This is for C. Maybe C++ has better hashmaps.
gcc
-
C++ Safety, in Context
> 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?
- Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))
-
Converting the Kernel to C++
Somewhat related: In 2020 gcc bumped the requirement for bootstrapping to be a C++11 compiler [0]. Would have been fun to see the kernel finally adopt C++14 as the author suggested.
I don't think that Linus will allow this since he just commented that he will allow rust in drivers and major subsystems [1].
I do found it pretty funny that even Linus is also not writing any rust code, but is reading rust code.
I would have hoped see more answers or see something in here from actual kernel developers.
0: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/5329b59a2e13dabbe20...
-
Understanding Objective-C by transpiling it to C++
> They’re saying that a lot of the restrictions makes things much harder than other languages. Hence the general problem rust has where a lot of trivial tasks in other languages are extremely challenging.
Like what? So far the discussion has revolved around rewriting a linked list, which people generally shouldn't ever need to do because it's included in the standard lib for most languages. And it's a decidedly nontrivial task to do as well as the standard lib when you don't sacrifice runtime overhead to be able to handwave object lifecycle management.
- C++: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-...
- Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/src/alloc/collections/linked_...
> No need to get defensive, no one is arguing that rust doesn’t do a lot of things well.
That's literally what bsaul is arguing in another comment. :)
> You’re talking up getting a safe implementation in C, but what matters is “can I get the same level of safety with less complexity in any language”, and the answer is yes: Java and c# implementations of a thread safe linked list are trivial.
Less perceived complexity. In Java and C# you're delegating the responsibility of lifecycle management to garbage collectors. For small to medium scale web apps, the added complexity will be under the hood and you won't have to worry about it. For extreme use cases, the behavior and overhead of the garbage collector does became relevant.
If you factor in the code for the garbage collector that Java and C# depend on, the code complexity will tilt dramatically in favor of C++ or Rust.
However, it's going to be non-idiomatic to rewrite a garbage collector in Java or C# like it is to rewrite a linked list in Rust. If we consider the languages as they're actually used, rather than an academic scenario which mostly crops up when people expect the language to behave like C or Java, the comparison is a lot more favorable than you're framing it as.
> If I wanted I could do it in c++ though the complexity would be more than c# and Java it would be easier than rust.
You can certainly write a thread-safe linked list in C++, but then the enforcement of any assumptions you made about using it will be a manual burden on the user. This isn't just a design problem you can solve with more code - C++ is incapable of expressing the same restrictions as Rust, because doing so would break compatibility with C++ code and the language constructs needed to do so don't exist.
So it's somewhat apples and oranges here. Yes, you may have provided your team with a linked list, but it will either
-
Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
GCC is also written in C++, and has had C++ deps since 2013:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-parser...
- Spitbol 360: an implementation of SNOBOL4 for IBM 360 compatible computers
-
are most computer programming languages public domain, or do their creators get a say in what you do with them?
Compliers/Interpreters are also very commonly open source (here is the source code for a popular C compiler). That means you can even modify the compiler's code and change its behavior if you wanted to.
- Learn to write production quality STL like classes
-
Which compiler is conforming here?
according to this commit, the story here seems to be much more interessting than I initially anticipated.
-
My favorite C compiler flags during development
For a more detailed explanation, see [2]. (Also the inspiration for the above example,)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
[2] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/50ddbd0282e06614b29...
What are some alternatives?
frr - The FRRouting Protocol Suite
CMake - Mirror of CMake upstream repository
wazero - wazero: the zero dependency WebAssembly runtime for Go developers
rtl8192eu-linux-driver - Drivers for the rtl8192eu chipset for wireless adapters (D-Link DWA-131 rev E1 included!)
chibicc - A small C compiler
llvm-project - The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies.
stage0 - A set of minimal dependency bootstrap binaries
STL - MSVC's implementation of the C++ Standard Library.
pottery - Pottery - A container and algorithm template library in C
cobol-on-wheelchair - Micro web-framework for COBOL
libderp - C collections. Easy to build, boring algorithms. Dumb is good.
qemu