3 ms·

Linux has libnuma (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/numa.3.html https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/numa.3.html) while Windows has its own NUMA api (http

Linux has libnuma (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/numa.3.html https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/numa.3.html) while Windows has its own NUMA api (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/numa-support https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/n...) For CPU/OS scheduling, use pthreads/OpenMP apis to set processor affinity for threads. For SIMD, use compiler intrinsics.

pjmlp 9mo ago
Nothing of that is written in pure C, as per ISO C standard. Rather they rely on a mix of C compiler language extensions, inline or external Assembly written helpers functions, which any language compiled language also has available, when going out of the standard goes.
- theamk 9mo ago
  I think you are being nitpicky here. When most people say "I write in C", they don't mean abstract ISO C standard, with the possibility of CHAR_BIT=9. They mean "C for my machine" - so C with compiler extensions, assumptions about memory model, and yes, occasional inline assembly.
  - pjmlp 9mo ago
    I am, because people making C something special that it isn't. Other languages share the same features.
- rramadass 9mo ago
  That is not an argument. ANSI/ISO C standardizes hardware-independent parts of the language but at some point you have to meet the hardware. The concept of a "implementation platform" (i.e. cpu arch + OS + ABI) is well known for all language runtimes. All apps using the above-mentioned are written in standard ANSI/ISO C. The implementation themselves are "system level" code and hence have Language/HW/OS specific extensions which is standard practice when interfacing with low-level code. > any language compiled language also has available In theory yes, but in practice never to the ease nor flexibility with which you can use C for the job. This is what people mean when they say "C is close to the metal" or "C is a high-level assembly language".
  - pjmlp 9mo ago
    It is, because C is nothing special, those features are available in other languages. Proven before C was even a dream at AT&T, and by all other OS vendors outside Bell Labs using other systems languages. Then people get to argue C can X, yeah provided it is the Compiler XYZ C dialect.
    - rramadass 9mo ago
      Not quite. C took off because system programmers could not do with other languages what they wanted, with the ease and flexibility that C offered. Having a feature in a language is not the same as how easy it is to span hardware, OS and application in the same language and runtime.
      - pjmlp 9mo ago
        Not really. C took off because it was free, shipped alongside with an operating system that initially was available for a symbolic price, as AT&T was forbidden to take advantage of UNIX. Had UNIX been a commercial operating system, with additional licenses for the C compiler, like every other operating systems outside Bell Labs, we would not be even talking about C in 2026.
        rramadass 9mo ago
        Being easily affordable/available in those times was the initial "hook" but C's subsequent and sustained success was due to a happy confluence of various design decisions. Not too high-level, Not too low-level, easy access to memory/ISA, simple abstract machine, being imperative procedural, spanning bare-metal/OS/app, adopted by free software movement producing free compilers/tools, becoming de-facto industry standard ABI etc. all were crucial in its rise to power. Note that its main competitor at that time, Pascal; lost out in spite of being simpler, having clean high-level features, promoted by academia, safety focused etc. As Dennis Ritchie himself said in "The Development of the C Language" (https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist.html https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist...); C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success. While accidents of history surely helped, it evidently satisfied a need for a system implementation language efficient enough to displace assembly language, yet sufficiently abstract and fluent to describe algorithms and interactions in a wide variety of environments.

pjmlp 9mo ago

Nothing of that is written in pure C, as per ISO C standard. Rather they rely on a mix of C compiler language extensions, inline or external Assembly written helpers functions, which any language compiled language also has available, when going out of the standard goes.

theamk 9mo ago
I think you are being nitpicky here. When most people say "I write in C", they don't mean abstract ISO C standard, with the possibility of CHAR_BIT=9. They mean "C for my machine" - so C with compiler extensions, assumptions about memory model, and yes, occasional inline assembly.
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  I am, because people making C something special that it isn't. Other languages share the same features.
rramadass 9mo ago
That is not an argument. ANSI/ISO C standardizes hardware-independent parts of the language but at some point you have to meet the hardware. The concept of a "implementation platform" (i.e. cpu arch + OS + ABI) is well known for all language runtimes. All apps using the above-mentioned are written in standard ANSI/ISO C. The implementation themselves are "system level" code and hence have Language/HW/OS specific extensions which is standard practice when interfacing with low-level code. > any language compiled language also has available In theory yes, but in practice never to the ease nor flexibility with which you can use C for the job. This is what people mean when they say "C is close to the metal" or "C is a high-level assembly language".
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  It is, because C is nothing special, those features are available in other languages. Proven before C was even a dream at AT&T, and by all other OS vendors outside Bell Labs using other systems languages. Then people get to argue C can X, yeah provided it is the Compiler XYZ C dialect.
  - rramadass 9mo ago
    Not quite. C took off because system programmers could not do with other languages what they wanted, with the ease and flexibility that C offered. Having a feature in a language is not the same as how easy it is to span hardware, OS and application in the same language and runtime.
    - pjmlp 9mo ago
      Not really. C took off because it was free, shipped alongside with an operating system that initially was available for a symbolic price, as AT&T was forbidden to take advantage of UNIX. Had UNIX been a commercial operating system, with additional licenses for the C compiler, like every other operating systems outside Bell Labs, we would not be even talking about C in 2026.
      - rramadass 9mo ago
        Being easily affordable/available in those times was the initial "hook" but C's subsequent and sustained success was due to a happy confluence of various design decisions. Not too high-level, Not too low-level, easy access to memory/ISA, simple abstract machine, being imperative procedural, spanning bare-metal/OS/app, adopted by free software movement producing free compilers/tools, becoming de-facto industry standard ABI etc. all were crucial in its rise to power. Note that its main competitor at that time, Pascal; lost out in spite of being simpler, having clean high-level features, promoted by academia, safety focused etc. As Dennis Ritchie himself said in "The Development of the C Language" (https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist.html https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist...); C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success. While accidents of history surely helped, it evidently satisfied a need for a system implementation language efficient enough to displace assembly language, yet sufficiently abstract and fluent to describe algorithms and interactions in a wide variety of environments.