nlewycky

10 ms·

1. 61.▲
   by nlewycky 4y ago

   The original PR did nothing but add grammar errors to the README, with a mismatching PR description and title, then demanded that it actually be merged. I read this as a way to waste people's time, from there it's just a question
2. 62.▲
   by nlewycky 5y ago

   If you feed LLVM bad IR, all bets are off. LLVM's assertions and IR verifier are impressively comprehensive, but not a guarantee. For example, LLVM has a pointer type and a void type, but you may not make a pointer-to-void type, see h
3. 63.▲
   by nlewycky 5y ago

   How do you feel about: void foo1(int *p) { *p = 7; printf("%d\n", *p); free(p); } May the compiler replace that with puts("7") and free()? Recall that free() is a no-op when the pointer is NULL. Are
4. 64.▲
   by nlewycky 6y ago

   I've been trying to teach myself Coq, one of the formal provers mentioned in the article, so I'll try to explain how Coq works, and I'll send you to another website with a tutorial instead of trying to explain how to use it.
5. 65.▲
   by nlewycky 7y ago

   GOTO was supported in LLVM from the beginning. The new feature is ASM GOTO. An ASM block is opaque to the compiler, and the compiler treats it similarly to a function call. A called function may contain control flow internal to itself, but
6. 66.▲
   by nlewycky 7y ago

   Oracle's remaining claim is that functions having particular names and belonging to particular packages is copyrighted by them and was replicated by Google. For example, the function to calculate the sine of an angle is named 'sin