phkamp

35 ms·

331.
by phkamp 15y ago
Provided you were prevented from linking objects together which were compiled with different C versions, that would be both better and safer. The problem with ISO-C's approach is that the chances of having both "#include <stdbool.h>
332.
by phkamp 15y ago
Last time I wrote inline ASM was 2 days ago. I'm a kernel programmer, remember ?
333.
by phkamp 15y ago
I doubt any language will replace C ever, given the penetration it has, but maybe we could get a better C2X than the crap C1X seems to be. It would require a significant fraction of programmers to agree with me that C1X is crap in the firs
334.
by phkamp 15y ago
You're probably right about that, ANSI did a couple of good things, but I'm not sure I think they came out in the black in the end. ISO on the other hand, seems like a total disaster.
335.
by phkamp 15y ago
I'm not sure I have a coherent proposal. Clearly ISO-C is a cul-de-sac by now, and will have to be ditched. What we should replace it with is not clear to me. It is a big problem that so many standards, requirements and tools (from EMACS
336.
by phkamp 15y ago
You overlook the %z printf specifier which attempts, but not quite solves the problem, because size_t comes in both a signed (ssize_t) and unsigned (size_t) variant. I usually end up doing printf("%j", (intmax_t)foo);
337.
by phkamp 15y ago
Funny you should say that: I've always wondered how it worked in the inside. I'm not claiming it is a great opera house, but it is a very good example of using modern building tools. When Utzon died, one of our (Danish) newspapers explained
338.
by phkamp 15y ago
You have absolutely no idea what, or rather: who, you are talking about: I'm the second most active committer to FreeBSDs kernel over the project lifetime and I'm the author of Varnish, I even have C-code running in ATC systems, heck when
339.
by phkamp 15y ago
Too bad it is not part of the ABI specification on any known platform, so if you call a library function compiled without this magic compiler you're totally screwed. But an interesting research project, I'll grant you that.
340.
by phkamp 15y ago
And that's where C started out (as 'B'). Adding structures or for that matter pointers to a programming language was not "novel" in 1970. The sheer success of the UNIX and the myth it has built, has many contemporary programmers thinking th
341.
by phkamp 15y ago
Please give an example of an implementation of this thread API where having the ability to specify the desired stacksize would "be meaningless" ? Even on 64bit machines you can and will have memory fragmentation when you approach a million
342.
by phkamp 15y ago
Yeah, that would have been neat, unfortunately they came up with a solution which will work for nobody...
343.
by phkamp 15y ago
You mean the job where the first 10 ammendments were necessary after just two years ? :-)
344.
by phkamp 15y ago
First: Why should the API for setting stack-size be implementation defined, when a stack mandated to implement the language ? Second: You seem to labour under the misunderstanding that all threads in a program have, and should have the sam
345.
by phkamp 15y ago
You are rationalizing: C was not "novel", it was pretty much BCPL-light. There also were portable operating systems before UNIX, some of them were written in PL/1 and FORTRAN.
346.
by phkamp 15y ago
First of all: You're wrong, the compatibility is the other way around: The old code will have to include <stdnoreturn.h> if they used the "noreturn" compiler-specific keyword, while waiting for the glacial ISO WG progress. Second:
347.
by phkamp 15y ago
This comment was filled with fail. Pthreads has been the standard for 20 years, either you do better than it does, or you are wasting everybodys time, including your own. "Too dangerous" is a direct quote from a WG14 member. Stacksize is no
348.
by phkamp 15y ago
Yes, but gcc gives you no way to explain to the compiler that %Q takes a struct foobar* as argument, so either you don't use extensions, and have the seatbelts provided by -Wformat, or you use extensions and have no seatbelts at all.
349.
ISO C is increasingly moronic(varnish-cache.org)
283 points by phkamp 15y ago|167 comments
350.
by phkamp 16y ago
Yeah, well, Varnish is a slightly special in that it needs a C-compiler at runtime, so cross-compilation is not terribly relevant: If you do not have a native compiler, you cannot use it anyway. (The VCL domain-specific language is transla
351.
by phkamp 16y ago
Ohh, dear, another forum to keep an eye on :-) First: congratulations, the level of discussion here is a fair bit above what I have seen so far on reddit and slashdot. Second: A sense a number of bruised egos. Good. That is often a sound