hramrach

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by hramrach 4y ago

   Has anybody actually read the article? Meta is not arguing against adding the leap second, they just argue that skewing the clock slightly over some hours avoids the 'invalid' time with 61 seconds in a minute and the resulting sof
2. 2.▲
   by hramrach 4y ago

   Isn't it the same in the countries that are looked down at because they have the 'overt' type of corruption? It's just the way things are done there, and it's so entrenched that people cannot step back and see it ra
3. 3.▲
   by hramrach 5y ago

   I believe it completely solves the question ? May we remove '*p = 0;', whether we remove the malloc+free or not? Sure, it does not solve the question when arbitrarily removing NULL pointer checks is OK. It is true that when the co
4. 4.▲
   by hramrach 5y ago

   I don't understand. If you can turn the loop from upward to downward then you do have a bound for it, and then you can tell if it overflows or not. Also why is signed overflow a problem and not unsigned? Surely you want unsigned loop o
5. 5.▲
   by hramrach 5y ago

   Don't compilers already have ways to mark variables and dereferences in a way to say 'I really want access to this value happen'? They are free to optimize away access to any result that is not used based on code elimination,