Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 10:45:29 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote: Perhaps the answer to this is obvious, but what's harder to write from scratch - a C++ compiler or a D compiler? :-) I suspect writing a C++ compiler would be more difficult, unless you takes some shortcuts. The language's grammar is inherently hard to parse. Its semantics are overwhelmingly complex, with countless corner-cases to consider for every feature. Though the first hurdle would be actually reading the standard. Last I checked, the C++14 standard was a 1300-page document. D's situation is far better: context-free grammar, mostly straightforward semantics, and I believe it has fewer 'disruptive' features (those which interact badly with other features). Implementing D would still be a huge undertaking, due to the sheer quantity of language features, but I imagine there would be *far* less tricky parts. Disclaimer: I have no experience writing compiler backends (and limited experience writing frontends).
Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On 10/03/2015 12:45 PM, Abdulhaq wrote:
Perhaps the answer to this is obvious, but what's harder to write from
scratch - a C++ compiler or a D compiler? :-)
We know Walter wrote a C++ compiler single handedly, does anyone else
recall the C++ Grandmaster qualification, the free course where
participants get to write a complete C++ compiler from scratch? I think
it's dead now but I can't find any real info about that despite a
serious google. What's the chances of anyone single-handedly writing a D
compiler from scratch in the future? I know deadalnix is writing SDC in
D - sounds interesting.
I have also started a similar project four years ago (it's currently
just an incomplete compiler front-end), but I have not been able to work
much on it during the last year. (It only compiles with DMD 2.060
though, because of issues similar to what I discuss below.)
Is the D language well enough documented /
specified for a complete D implementation to be even possible (as things
stand now)?
Well, not really. The main impediment to a fully formal specification is
the interplay of forward references and the meta-programming system.
(DMD just does a best-effort kind of thing, where the common case
scenarios for which there were bug reports work, but in general the
semantics of the resulting code can depend on things like the order that
modules are passed on the command line, or perfectly valid code is
rejected with a "forward reference error".) The documentation just
specifies that everything works, but there is no consistent way to
interpret it.
E.g.:
static if(!is(typeof(x))) enum y=2;
static if(!is(typeof(y))) enum x=2;
Arbitrarily abstruse examples can be constructed, e.g. this is from my
test suite:
struct TestInvalidInheritance{
class A{ int string; } // error
template Mixin(string s){
mixin("alias "~s~" Mixin;");
}
class D: Mixin!({D d = new E; return d.foo();}()){
int foo(int x){ return 2;}
string foo(){ return "X"; }
}
class E: D{
override int foo(int x){ return super.foo(x); }
override string foo(){ return "A"; }
}
}
(I currently accept this code if the declaration of int string in class
A is removed. Otherwise the code is analyzed until the point when it is
clear that A is in D's superclass chain, and it is also clear that the
symbol 'string' which was necessary to resolve in order to discover this
fact was resolved incorrectly. The compiler then gives up and prints an
error message:
example.d:3:18: error: declaration of 'string' is invalid
class A{ int string; } // error
^─
example.d:9:9: note: this lookup on subclass 'D' should have resolved to it
string foo(){ return "X"; })
^─
I and SDC have different ways to deal with those kinds of examples, and
I think the SDC way does not work (unless things have changed since I
have looked at it). It assumes that declarations can be ordered and that
it is fine to depend on the order of declarations.
My implementation is designed to be independent of declaration order and
to reject the cases where there is no single obvious and consistent
interpretation of the program. The drawbacks currently are:
- It is overly conservative in some cases, especially when string mixins
are involved. E.g., the following code has only one consistent
interpretation, but it is rejected (as is any reordering of those
declarations):
enum x = "enum xx = q{int y = 0;};";
struct SS{
mixin(xx);
mixin(x);
}
- The current implementation is somewhat slow. IIRC, N-fold recursive
template instantiation currently runs in Ω(N²). It's clear that this
needs to be improved. If this is to be adopted as the official solution,
it should not make the compiler any slower, at least in the common case.
There are also some other, more minor issues. For example, when the
language specification speaks about "memory safety", it is really
unclear what this means, as the language designers seem to think it that
it is fine to have undefined behaviour in a section of code that is
"verified memory safe".
C++ compiler vs D compiler
Perhaps the answer to this is obvious, but what's harder to write from scratch - a C++ compiler or a D compiler? :-) We know Walter wrote a C++ compiler single handedly, does anyone else recall the C++ Grandmaster qualification, the free course where participants get to write a complete C++ compiler from scratch? I think it's dead now but I can't find any real info about that despite a serious google. What's the chances of anyone single-handedly writing a D compiler from scratch in the future? I know deadalnix is writing SDC in D - sounds interesting. Is the D language well enough documented / specified for a complete D implementation to be even possible (as things stand now)?
Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On 10/3/2015 8:43 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: There are also some other, more minor issues. For example, when the language specification speaks about "memory safety", it is really unclear what this means, as the language designers seem to think it that it is fine to have undefined behaviour in a section of code that is "verified memory safe". Memory safety means no memory corruption is possible.
Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 19:43:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: There are also some other, more minor issues. For example, when the language specification speaks about "memory safety", it is really unclear what this means, as the language designers seem to think it that it is fine to have undefined behaviour in a section of code that is "verified memory safe". Memory safety means no memory corruption is possible. Therefore, there can be no undefined behavior in @safe code.
Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On 10/3/2015 12:49 PM, deadalnix wrote: On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 19:43:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: There are also some other, more minor issues. For example, when the language specification speaks about "memory safety", it is really unclear what this means, as the language designers seem to think it that it is fine to have undefined behaviour in a section of code that is "verified memory safe". Memory safety means no memory corruption is possible. Therefore, there can be no undefined behavior in @safe code. Overflowing an int is undefined behavior, but it is not memory corruption.
Re: C++ compiler vs D compiler
On Sunday, 4 October 2015 at 01:26:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Memory safety means no memory corruption is possible. Therefore, there can be no undefined behavior in @safe code. Overflowing an int is undefined behavior, but it is not memory corruption. Overflowing an int is defined behavior in D. But let's say it is undefined behavior, is it guaranteed to be memory safe ? On a first glance it may seems, but I wouldn't bet on it. I'm sure one can find cases where to optimizer will generate something unsafe based on undefined behavior. Things like : 1/ Ho, let's remove that runtime check as I can prove it always pass. 2/ Ho, let's remove this codepath as I'm allowed to do so because undefined behavior. 3/ Well fuck, invariant for 1/ is now broken because of the missing codepath and the code is not memory safe. You'd be surprised how much tens of perfectly reasonable transformations run one after another can do to your code when you throw undefined behavior in. TL;DR: Even if it doesn't touch memory, it can lead to memory unsafe things.
