simh VS llvm-project

It sounds like there was a config option available to disable the signature addition to the image file ( https://github.com/simh/simh/issues/1059#issuecomment-108689... ). I could see a benefits for having an embedded image signature for preservation and corruption detection issues.

I don't think complaining about the design is toxic, but recruiting uninvolved people on twitter, and harassing out of ban certainly is. Also reading the bug thread it seems the person with the issue wasn't the same as the one who instigated the harasment. (https://github.com/simh/simh/issues/1059#issuecomment-108675...)

Perhaps, however, SIMH (http://simh.trailing-edge.com/, https://opensimh.org/) also calls itself a simulator rather than an emulator. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I guess!

You can get emulators for the machine: SIMH

I looked into this recently too, given the large amount of instructions at https://github.com/simh/simh/blob/master/0readme_ethernet.txt I decided it was too much bother for now.

In case anyone was wondering:

> The de facto emulator for most old computers is Simh https://github.com/simh/simh. The size and complexity of the individual machine apps is such that a direct port to a memory limited system is not feasible.

VAX has its die hard fans, and the historical value of the VAX and what it did to shape our computing world can't be overstated. As both a learning tool and a way to preserve history, simh and VAX emulation are wonderfully accessible. VAX running modern NetBSD does an excellent job illustrating where performance regressions happen and where bad assumptions are made. None of these are compelling reasons to target a new toolchain to a classic architecture by themselves, but the interest is there.

A long time ago you posted a suggestion in the original SIMH GitHub as an issue to have Interlan NI1010A added. https://github.com/simh/simh/issues/380

https://github.com/simh/simh

Richard Cornwell has implemented the IBM 701, IBM 704, IBM 7010/1410, IBM 7070/7074, IBM 7080/702/705/7053 and IBM 7090/7094/709/704 simulators.

'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...