News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM. Parent comment

Re:Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM by pcwalton on Sunday December 27, 2015 @01:04PM (#10798190)
ISO Core C++ is trying to do something like this. They have to, in order to count on the properties of "const" for their static safety analysis.

(I have my reservations about whether ISO Core C++ with the lifetime profile really qualifies as C++ anymore due the massively backwards incompatible nature of the changes, but it'll be interesting nonetheless.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM by twoodfin on Sunday December 27, 2015 @05:37PM (#10799008)
Can you link to more information about this? Googling for "c++ core lifetime profile" just takes me to the Core Guidelines.

Is the idea that they'll codify a bunch of static analysis that disallows problematic constructs & patterns? Could implementers then add something like Rust's ownership checks (assuming full source visibility)?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM by steveklabnik on Monday December 28, 2015 @10:10AM (#10801406)
My sibling commentators have given you good links, but it's worth noting that these systems and Rust have a lot of differences. For example, they're explicitly not trying to tackle data races, and the way that they work is different.

I'm excited to see this all play out though!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM by gaul on Sunday December 27, 2015 @10:30PM (#10799718)
CppCon 2015: Herb Sutter "Writing Good C++14... By Default":

https://youtu.be/hEx5DNLWGgA

Sutter comments on const_cast around 11m15s.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Optimizing C++ Const Objects in LLVM by pjmlp on Sunday December 27, 2015 @08:33PM (#10799400)
Yes.

Microsoft has delivered a beta version of it with VS 2015 Update 1.

Clang guys are improving clang-tidy for similar errors.

Check Herb Sutter's talk at CppCon 2015.

[ Parent | on HN ]