gpderetta

7 ms·

91.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
accelerando is not exactly obscure!
92.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
I don't particularly mind the ^^ and [::] sigils, but the 'template for (constexpr auto ...)' is a bit ugly and hard to explain to a beginner. But interestingly the code can be improved. The issue is that meta::info[1] is a p
93.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
gcc actually documents this behaviour: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Guard-Macros.htm...
94.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
Agree that proof of implementation and real world experience should be a requirement for standardization. But it is a catch-22: implement it's are probably not always too keen to spend time on a large feature if it is not clear that it
95.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
The compiler doesn't need to open the same file multiple times. It can remember if a a file is guarded or not every time it sees its name. My understanding is that this is an optimization that has been available for a very long time no
96.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
I completely understand your point. Then again you might be able to use reflection to verify that your manually rolled implementation actually serializes all fields.
97.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
The question is whether something belong in the language or in a library (possibly the standard library). A guiding principle of C++ is that if something can be implemented cleanly and efficiently in a library, the language should not be ex
98.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
The whole point of reflection is that it doesn't have to be builtin.
99.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
The last time I asked the same question here, user dwattttt finally pointed out[1][2] to me that there is a significant difference: wfmo can actually acquire semaphores in addition to waiting for them, which poll can't do in a non-racy
100.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
you do not need an orbital capable launcher to carry an anti-satellite weapons. Modified SAMs are sufficient.
101.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
"The Most Exciting Phrase in Science Is Not ‘Eureka!’ But ‘That’s Funny’" (often attributed to Isaac Asimov, but origin is uncertain)
102.
by gpderetta 5mo ago
I think parent was alluding to mutability.
103.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
TL;DR Birthday Paradox.
104.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
VisualRust
105.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
Well, ignoring alignment restrictions, it depends on the implementation of read. If it is truly opaque, as far as the compiler is concerned, the kernel (or the network card or whatever) is truly constructing a Foo in that buffer, making the
106.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
Everybody remembers that specific version :). And I wasn't even programming professionally at that time!
107.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
A good artillery team should be able to fire and scoot before counter-battery fire. And that's supersonic. You won't be able to do counter-battery with current drones. And an hypothetical supersonic drone is not going to be cost e
108.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
It seems I chose AI 5 times out of 5. I'm not a native speaker, so I might have preferred a slightly more straightforward text. On one side, I think this suffers a lot from selection bias: short AI snippets specifically chosen by human
109.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
Data race != Race condition
110.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
maybe you have a wrong mental model on how compiler works then. I'm not a compiler developer, but usually I have a pretty good idea on what code gcc will generate for my C++: it is far from a black box. Also compilers usually compose w
111.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
LLMs are deterministic[1], but the only way to determine the output is to empirically run them. With compilers, both the implementor and a power user understand the specific code transformations they are capable of, so you can predict their
112.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
And in practice it is very likely that XOR and the variously sized vector ADDs and SUBs are implemented exactly by the same ALU circuitry, parameterized by a bitmasks of the carry lines to enable (none for XOR, all except the vector size bo
113.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
special mov 0 instruction times 8 registers. The opcode space, especially 1 byte opcode space, is precious so encoding redundant operations is wasteful.
114.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
ah, I thought it was an Ubik reference!
115.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
Interesting, after the mention of inverse Ackerman and spanning trees, I was sure this was going to be Union-Find (i.e. Kruskal's)!
116.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
There is really no such a thing as cacheline locking per-se. As far as I understand, the coherence protocol guarantees that the cpu can hold a cacheline in the exclusive state for a certain set amount of cycles, which is enough to write the
117.
by gpderetta 6mo ago
You don't want them. Except for bug-compatibility with old broken software which is something that Intel (and MS) care a lot about. If you mean split-lock detection , it is because split locks are a massive DoS vulnerability on high c
118.
by gpderetta 7mo ago
What are A-10s doing there? There isn't yet any ground operation, right?
119.
by gpderetta 7mo ago
Agree on both counts. I use debian unstable and is usually 50/50 on whether the machine will reboot on a working display after a kernel upgrade. Very easy to fix if you have a bit of knowledge, but certainly not ready for the general p
120.
by gpderetta 7mo ago
Partial specialization specifically. Match some patterns and covert it to something else. For example: struct F { double x; }; enum Op { Add, Mul }; auto eval(F x) { return x.x; } template<class L, class R, Op op> struct Exp

More ›