[kryptiskt]

What would be refreshing would be a C/C++ compiler that did away with the intermediate step of linking and built the whole program as a unit. LTO doesn't even have to be a thing if the compiler can see the entire program in the first place. It would still have to save some build products so that incremental builds are possible, but not as object files, the compiler would need metadata to know of the origin and dependencies of all the generated code so it would be able to replace the right things.

External libs are most often linked dynamically these days, so they don't need to be built from source, so eliminating the linker doesn't pose a problem for non-open source dependencies. And if that's not enough letting the compiler also consume object files could provide for legacy use cases or edge cases where you must statically link to a binary.

[dapperdrake]

SQLite3 just concatenation everything together into one compilation unit. So, more people have been using this than probably know about it.

https://sqlite.org/amalgamation.html

[jdxcode]

I totally see the point of this, but still, you have to admit this is pretty funny:

> Developers sometimes experience trouble debugging the quarter-million line amalgamation source file because some debuggers are only able to handle source code line numbers less than 32,768 [...] To circumvent this limitation, the amalgamation is also available in a split form, consisting of files "sqlite3-1.c", "sqlite3-2.c", and so forth, where each file is less than 32,768 lines in length

[yellowapple]

That would imply that such debuggers are storing line numbers as not just 16-bit numbers (which is probably sensible, considering that source files longer than that are uncommon), but as signed 16-bit numbers. I can't fathom a situation where line numbers would ever be negative.

[usefulcat]

Cue C or C++ should-I-prefer-signed-or-unsigned-integers debate

[eredengrin]

It's not that uncommon of a convention to strictly use signed numbers unless doing bit manipulation, eg the Google C++ Style Guide.

[rocqua]

Notably, unsigned integers also have defined behavior for overflow. This means compilers can do less optimization on unsigned integers. For example, they can't assume that. x + 1 > x for unsigned ints, but are free to assume that for standard ints.

That is just another reason to stick with signed ints unless there is a very specific behavior you rely on.

[yellowapple]

> For example, they can't assume that. x + 1 > x for unsigned ints, but are free to assume that for standard ints.

No they ain't:

    julia> x = typemax(Int16)
    32767
    
    julia> x + Int16(1) > x
    false

Integers are integers, and can roll over regardless of whether or not they're signed. Avoiding rollover is not a reason to stick with signed integers; indeed, rollover is a very good reason to avoid using signed integers unless you're specifically prepared to handle unexpectedly-negative values.

[makapuf]

Maybe somewhere some line offset is stored as i16? (I don't understand why anyway but..)

[shakna]

The __LINE__ macro defaults to "int". That then gets handed to the debugger.

[qzzi]

The __LINE__ macro, like all other macros, is expanded during the preprocessing of the source code and is not handed to the debugger in any way.

[shakna]

Yes... And debuggers that implement line numbers, generally work by taking that information as part of the preprocessing stage. And the #line and __LINE__ macro/directive were implemented _for debuggers_ when originally created. They were made to be handed over to the debugger.

If you simply compile and run, the debugger won't have __LINE__, no. But it also won't have line numbers, at all. So you might have missed a bit of context to this discussion - how are line numbers implemented in a debugger that does so, without access to the source?

[dapperdrake]

*concatenates

Apologies for the typo. And now it is too late to edit the post.