scip VS llvm-project

security is up there, but from reading the examples in CodeQL it just seemed like it would be possible to express some truly great versions of "don't do that" rules in it. I am a total JetBrains fanboi, and their introspections are world-class, but getting Qodana to run to completion before the heat death of the universe has proven to require more glucose than I have to offer it. Thus, I'm always interested in alternate implementations, even though I am acutely aware of the computational complexity of what I'm asking

I recalled another link I wish I had included in my question from the SourceGraph folks https://github.com/sourcegraph/scip#scip-code-intelligence-p... which started out life as "Language Server Indexing Protocol" and seems to solve some similar project-wide introspection questions but TBH since their rug pull I've been a lot less willing to hitch my wagon to their train

New standards proliferate all the time and many simply cannot rely solely on a compiler language server but can rely on a custom semantic information protocol - SCIP comes to mind. :)

Over the last ~9 months or so, we've been moving away from LSIF and have been using SCIP instead. https://github.com/sourcegraph/scip (announcement blog post, which covers the reasons for why we stopped using LSIF: https://about.sourcegraph.com/blog/announcing-scip)

This is pretty much exactly what we've built at Sourcegraph. Microsoft had introduced (but pretty much abandoned before it even started) LSIF, a static index format for LSP servers requests/responses.

We took that torch and carried it forward, building the spiritual successor called SCIP[0]. It's language agnostic, we have indexers for quite a few languages already, and we genuinely intend for it to be vendor neutral / a proper OSS project[1].

[0] https://about.sourcegraph.com/blog/announcing-scip

[1] https://github.com/sourcegraph/scip

Created a PR to mention tools using SCIP in the README. https://github.com/sourcegraph/scip/pull/101

I've looked into the pull request that added SCIP support to rust-analyzer, and apparently rust-analyzer uses the scip crate. The linked PR also links to a blog post that explains the motivation for scip. The github repo of the scip crate lives here, it's not linked in Cargo.toml, probably should.

As far as I know, libstdc++'s representation has two advantages:

First, it simplifies the implementation of `s.data()`, because you hold a pointer that invariably points to the first character of the data. The pointer-less version needs to do a branch there. Compare libstdc++ [1] to libc++ [2].

[1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/065dddc/libstdc++-v3/...

[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a96179/libcxx/inc...

Basically libstdc++ is paying an extra 8 bytes of storage, and losing trivial relocatability, in exchange for one fewer branch every time you access the string's characters. I imagine that the performance impact of that extra branch is tiny, and massively confounded in practice by unrelated factors that are clearly on libc++'s side (e.g. libc++'s SSO buffer is 7 bytes bigger, despite libc++'s string object itself being smaller). But it's there.

The second advantage is that libstdc++ already did it that way, and to change it would be an ABI break; so now they're stuck with it. I mean, obviously that's not an "advantage" in the intuitive sense; but it's functionally equivalent to an advantage, in that it's a very strong technical answer to the question "Why doesn't libstdc++ just switch to doing it libc++'s way?"

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...