wg-allocators VS llvm-project

Tracking issue for Storages, and a TLDR on what it is

I must have gotten confused, since from your brief discussion with CAD97 it seemed like there was a way for the concepts to live separately and that Storage could complicate things in comparison. But if implementing Allocator in terms of Storage is basically equivalent and Storage is flexible enough that I could write one to pass memory out to unsafe code, that works just as well.

https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1974-global-allocators.html was the original RFC.

My vague understanding is that there's a working group https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators

The further I get from working on Rust day to day, the less I know about these things, so that's all I've got for you.

If you self-reference using pointers and guarantee the struct will never move, you don't even need unsafe. If you self-reference using offsets from the struct's base pointer, you need a splash of unsafe but your struct can be freely moved without invalidating its self-referential "pointers".

Per-struct allocators are a work in progress (see https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/48).

Not sure what "non thread local addresses" means, but in my experience Rust is pretty good at sending data between threads (without moving it).

Besides that allocation is not really a problem for no_std. It's resolved by using alloc crate directly, so anything usable with custom allocators is supported. Example in dasp sources - https://github.com/RustAudio/dasp/blob/master/dasp_slice/src/boxed.rs#L14-L19 . Also worth looking at this issue to check what is usable already - https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7

But that's on track for rust as well: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7

Here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1398. there is also a working group for this: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators.

It's unstable. wg-allocators contains discussions about design and a tracking issue for collections that need an allocator https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7

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...