cafxx

16 ms·

121.
by cafxx 8y ago
I guess that the author doesn't know what they're doing: https://github.com/meshbird/meshbird/blob/19fa62219dd1dd9069...
122.
by cafxx 8y ago
No mention anywhere of how it was ensured that the benchmark measurements were taken after the code had been compiled by the JIT (specifically, C2 on HotSpot)... seriously?
123.
by cafxx 8y ago
In any search result page, click Tools > All results > Verbatim. That is also how you restrict e.g. the temporal range of results (Tools > Any Time > ...)
124.
by cafxx 9y ago
Hello inetd, my old friend I've come to talk with you again Because bugs softly creeping Pwned my server while I was sleeping...
125.
by cafxx 9y ago
Now, if he really upstreamed his fixes... (it says he will, but in the next blog post he immediately backtracks saying 'I still want to ponder submitting an LLVM patch to make all this less hackish, but I also sort of don't really
126.
by cafxx 9y ago
Well, I guess because the runtime has to do a bunch of work to dispatch the events to the appropriate goroutine that is blocked waiting for that event. Switching and synchronization between goroutines is cheap, not free.
127.
by cafxx 9y ago
Software is buggy by default. That alone is enough to require you to not run with unfiltered access, if you really care about minimizing security risks. And if you do it (and you should) then this story doesn't affect you. I agree th
128.
by cafxx 9y ago
My first reaction was "if you're really worried about accidental/malicious exfiltration I'm sure you're running your servers WITHOUT unfiltered outbound access to the internet, RIGHT?"
129.
OpenJDK Project Metropolis: Java-on-Java via Graal(mail.openjdk.java.net)
3 points by cafxx 9y ago|0 comments
130.
by cafxx 9y ago
Seconded, would love to read something about this.
131.
by cafxx 9y ago
That explains the name. They ripped Intel a new one.
132.
by cafxx 10y ago
Am I missing something? It seems to propose to ditch all non-blocking APIs under the assumption that "runtimes" will provide lightweight concurrency. But AFAIK most (all?) runtimes that provide lightweight concurrency make extensi
133.
by cafxx 10y ago
I hope not, because this way a critical section requires two non-concurrent GCs (SetGCPercent calls runtime.GC() [1] and runtime.GC() triggers a non-concurrent GC [2]). If this is the option, I hope the critical sections in ntpsec are few a
134.
by cafxx 11y ago
Feel free to suggest a better name though...
135.
by cafxx 11y ago
No he didn't, see my answer to his post :)
136.
by cafxx 11y ago
Contents in a named pipe do not persist across OS restarts. Also a named pipe has limits about how much data you can put in it, because it's in-memory ( http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/fifo.7.html ,
137.
by cafxx 11y ago
Nope, the data they contain does not persist across OS restarts. Also they have hard limits on how much data they can contain because they are in-memory ( http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/fifo.7.html )
138.
Persistent “pipes” in Linux(gist.github.com)
18 points by cafxx 11y ago|9 comments