flykespice

28 ms·

481.
by flykespice 5y ago
This is a nice reason to play with x86 assembly at this century, and the challenge of fitting the code within a tweet makes it more exciting. Just now I want to return to playing with it
482.
by flykespice 5y ago
> No hidden control flow Oh boy and I was just reading ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30022022 ) about ISO C unsuitability for OS programming specially its implicit reordering of the control flow of the code, break
483.
by flykespice 5y ago
Expecting a language be better "enough" is an unrealistic one, you will be waiting forever. Of course no language will be perfect to a specific domain, there is no objective metric every individual has their own needs and no unive
484.
by flykespice 5y ago
The reason they reverted the commit as soon as they got _called_out_ is because bam they got CAUGHT!! They though they could be smart and slip in a malware quietly without anybody checking, which was pretty bad executed because literall
485.
by flykespice 5y ago
> [2] I will point out that, for arithmetic overflow, this semantics is usually wrong. There are very few times where you want <large positive number> + <large positive number> = <negative number>, and so you're mo
486.
by flykespice 5y ago
Forgot the main flavor, it must be performing, which is the reason UB were "created" in the ISO C in the first place.
487.
by flykespice 5y ago
Wow, this was an eye-opening read on my trust with ISO C. It makes much more understandable why linux codebase is riddled with compiler extensions, ISO C is simply not reliable anymore. The issue is bigger than what trembles on the surface,