hvdijk

16 ms·

121.
by hvdijk 5y ago
This was right after m4 was called gross and was said only to be good for special purposes, that it was to be avoided in general and better alternatives should be used instead. Then it says m4 is like immigrants. If it's a song referen
122.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Ah, right, thanks for the reminder, it always trips me up that overflow can round to infinity even in the mode that is called "round to nearest".
123.
by hvdijk 5y ago
You wrote: > Additionally, being able to represent positive and negative infinity is convenient and makes closing the operations easier without having to resort too much to the catch-all nan/undefined value. Which operations were yo
124.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Ah, okay, so it's a fix for handling hard links rather than a fix for WSL compatibility, it's a problem that could show up just the same on non-WSL systems.
125.
by hvdijk 5y ago
If WSL is not sufficiently compatible with Linux to run Linux applications, is that not something to be fixed in WSL instead?
126.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Nice to know that the C version will still be maintained as well, there are systems where setting up Zig would be a hassle. > Ncdu 2.0 doesn't work well with non-UTF-8 locales anymore, but I don't expect this to be a problem no
127.
by hvdijk 5y ago
CC0 and WTFPL are also copyright licenses. Works available under these licenses can be used with very few restrictions (basically, as few as permitted by law), but the works are still copyrighted.
128.
by hvdijk 5y ago
He is named Peter rather than Piter, Peter is a very common first name, De Vries is his father's last name, and he was born years before Dune was published.
129.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> Bash has a handy POSIX mode which you can run your code under if you’re not sure if it’s portable or not. That is not what POSIX mode is for. POSIX mode is to let POSIX scripts work, not to let non-POSIX scripts fail. The latter is don
130.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> then when the definitive version comes out I would need to downgrade if I don't have a TPM hardware Yes, if you do not have TPM hardware you will not be able to run Windows 11 when it is released. > (or if I don't want to
131.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Windows 11 previews do not require a TPM module, but the final Windows 11 will. Quoting from https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2021/06/28/update-... : > In support of the Windows 11 system requ
132.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Interesting that only a restricted switch is supported, but goto is apparently available unrestricted. Any switch should be trivially translatable to if-goto-else-if-goto-etc, so I wonder what the reason for that might be.
133.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> As others have said, this is either FUD Pointing out the power that MS have is not FUD. If I suggested that there is a chance they would abuse it, that might be, but I didn't do that. > or limited to specific systems with broke
134.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> They said it about UEFI - and yet I run Linux on UEFI systems all the time. Not just any UEFI, UEFI with SecureBoot enabled specifically. On SecureBoot-enabled systems, you're booting a Microsoft-signed executable that chainloads
135.
by hvdijk 5y ago
That's not entirely what is happening there. The shell doesn't exit because the [[ "$BASH_SOURCE" == "$0" ]] condition is false. Its status is checked, so it doesn't cause the shell to exit. What's ha
136.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Both ?: and if-else have cases where they can be compiled into cmov type instructions and where they cannot. Given int max(int a, int b) { if (a > b) return a; else return b; }, a decent compiler for X86 will avoid conditional branches e
137.
by hvdijk 5y ago
The question was how to build a URL, not how to send off a request to it. The answer sends off a request and then inspects the response to see what URL was used. If you wanted to send off the request, inspecting the URL on the result is pro
138.
by hvdijk 5y ago
About the "terrible" aspect of it, to quote: "Granted it’s not very readable and log / pow probably makes it less efficient than other solutions. But there were no loops and almost no branching which I thought was pretty
139.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Why would that be a problem with set -e? Both in that form and with if-then, if the [[ ... ]] fails, the shell does not exit, if any command in hello (or, in rare cases, hello itself) fails, it does. Shellcheck does not print anything relat
140.
by hvdijk 5y ago
You obscured your own e-mail address, but left the other e-mail addresses intact. Don't assume that these all belong to the spammer: spammers often use harvested e-mail addresses from mailing lists, data leaks, but also pastebins such
141.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Your source code may not be a derivative of the runtime, but your object code clearly is.
142.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Maybe that was the wrong way to phrase it, maybe we shouldn't assume Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor as there's no need to question rasengan's intentions. What it boils down to is that his actions now are i
143.
by hvdijk 5y ago
This is something that can happen even if everybody is aware of the problem. We don't know what their internal structure looks like, but in enough places I've worked, if something like this would happen, it would be clear that som
144.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> In what way? For the most part the standard does not address the existence of libraries other than the standard library, but 5.1.1.1 contains "Previously translated translation units may be preserved individually or in libraries.&
145.
by hvdijk 5y ago
Sure, but in the situation we were talking about, the user never wrote a definition for write(), and the user did not specify any library to include that provided a definition of write(). From the standard's perspective, that means the
146.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> Sure, the C standard doesn't define what write(2)'s effects will be, but that does not mean that calling it is UB according to the standard. Yes, it does. I already explained exactly why it needs to be UB, but let me quote wh
147.
by hvdijk 5y ago
The comment I replied to did talk about something not described by the standard though, namely syscalls. If you want to argue that we should not be talking about syscalls here, your issue should be with the original comment that brought the
148.
by hvdijk 5y ago
> behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements That is literally the definition of UB from the C standard. It is explicitly also ab
149.
by hvdijk 5y ago
About your edit: > "ISO C does not say anything about write(2), hence using write(2) is undefined behavior according to the C standard", which seems like a rather tautological and useless statement to me. That is actually not s
150.
by hvdijk 5y ago
What do you think UB is if not something where the behaviour is not defined?

More ›