manawy

5 ms·

1.
by manawy 10y ago
I have no doubt they do, but still... The question is : are the DOD/DOE (or the chinese/european equivalent) going to risk millions for their next supercomputers on a new architecture or prefer good old intel ? Especially when we
2.
by manawy 10y ago
or it could turn badly for the others, it will not gain attraction if intel products are not supported Inertia is a very strong decisive factor, especially when you need to make sure that 30+ year-old code still work like it's the case
3.
by manawy 11y ago
For your second example, this does not test for the compiler but for the provider of the SSL library. Clang does not provided it, so it's not a problem. But I get your point. My counter-argument is that more flexibility is left to the
4.
by manawy 11y ago
I'd argue that for Qt this approach makes sense because they provide a well defined API that they stick too. The developer can also ask for specific component if it just want them (like QT GUI, QT SVG...). I agree that this is more pro
5.
by manawy 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by databases of systems and features... I use CMake everyday and for me it's not a database but a set of modules. Each of this module will look for a particular thing. Some modules are better written tha
6.
by manawy 11y ago
Yes, I'm really happy that GCC optimize that code away. Most of us don't care about security issue too much when using C/C++. We do use it for performance, and use it mostly locally. GCC is a very versatile code. It's ok