uxcn

21 ms·

151.
by uxcn 11y ago
VLAs in reality are just as dangerous as allocating from the heap. I would agree not everything should be allocated on the stack, but you can overflow the heap just as you can overflow the stack. Unless people are completely irresponsible,
152.
by uxcn 11y ago
Actually, alloca is even less portable than VLAs.
153.
by uxcn 11y ago
It's a bit disappointing C seems to be getting left behind in some areas. It's simpler to compile, which in theory should mean that it's more portable.
154.
by uxcn 11y ago
I can only guess what the portable code for PS3 looked like :).
155.
by uxcn 11y ago
The majority of the time it's a safe assumption though, so I'm not sure developers can really be considered to blame. The reality is, without it, developing software for a platform takes more effort which I think is one of the rea
156.
by uxcn 11y ago
Why is it bad to expect a portable operating system interface? Almost all languages have been doing this over the last decade (C, C++, Java, Go, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc...).
157.
by uxcn 11y ago
I have seen systems that ran on hardware as old as DEC VAXs as late as 2008, but I'm not sure the reason behind not transitioning was risk aversion. Regardless, there aren't formal controls in place. Otherwise issues like Knight
158.
by uxcn 11y ago
Self-driving cars are also starting to be commercialized, which raises another level of questions.
159.
by uxcn 11y ago
Or even just Redhat and where the majority of their revenue comes from. I'm actually angry I clicked on this link.
160.
by uxcn 11y ago
How does that parse? I thought static was only a storage class.
161.
by uxcn 11y ago
It avoids stepping on memory elsewhere in the program though. My personal preference for C99 and above is to pass the length as a parameter. int do_stuff(size_t len, int64_t arr[len]); It still suffers from the pointer decay probl
162.
by uxcn 11y ago
What I would like to see in C++ is to have very detailed control over language features and enforce coding guidelines in my own code base. Clang/LLVM are meant for this. I haven't personally written anything that pa
163.
by uxcn 11y ago
Thanks, I appreciate the response. I started taking a look through the documentation and the CI looks pretty robust. I might try to set GitLab up at home soon. I currently use hosted travis-ci for personal projects, which is nice since I
164.
by uxcn 11y ago
Wow, this looks really nice! Are there any plans to expand the CI? The markup looks mostly job oriented, so I think most of the semantics would seem to need to be captured in scripts. For example, building across multiple operating syste
165.
by uxcn 11y ago
FreeBSD (4.7) was actually the first *nix I used. As a user operating system, I honestly might have been better served with a Linux distribution, but in retrospect FreeBSD still managed a lot of the end user aspects surprisingly well (Linu
166.
by uxcn 11y ago
Steve Ballmer was just a misunderstood visionary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE
167.
by uxcn 11y ago
What are some of the use cases?
168.
by uxcn 11y ago
Facebook might be able to give you more info if you contact them directly.
169.
by uxcn 11y ago
I suspect the compiler will be better able to optimize offsets than pointers just because of the semantics required by the language, but I think you're right that it isn't necessarily one size fits all. Another possible solution
170.
by uxcn 11y ago
To allow FAMs for non-trivially constructible/destructible types would be slightly more complicated than C FAMs, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to expect from the language/library, or intractable from a standa
171.
by uxcn 11y ago
I was recently bit using a similar technique to the original code for an intrusive type in C. Using manual non-typesafe raw offsets for things can definitely lead to nasty bugs. Automating the calculation of offsets and assigning pointers
172.
by uxcn 11y ago
Interesting, thanks for the links. Honestly, I tend to avoid writing Java in favor of native languages at this point largely because of latency requirements. I still wonder where code sharing outweighs the type cast overhead for most JVMs
173.
by uxcn 11y ago
Is there an actual JSR for reified generics? I was under the impression that would generally break VM compatibility. I have a hard time believing Google will stop supporting Java on Android, especially considering how widely they support i
174.
by uxcn 11y ago
I'm not a computational biologist, but I've run into this once or twice. I only use the shell for quick summary statistics now though. I started doing most of my analysis in R, which made life easier on a lot of different levels
175.
by uxcn 11y ago
I considered doing this with bash, but it was really only a marginal benefit for me. I do keep archives of all my rss/atom feeds though. https://github.com/uxcn/scripts/blob/master/misc/bash&#x
176.
by uxcn 11y ago
There have been lots of other performance improvements, but I think they're less visible than other stuff. The CRC instruction that got added in SSE4.2 seems to get fairly wide use in hashes and stuff like btrfs. I think rdrand , a
177.
by uxcn 11y ago
Compiling can be more expensive than 5s/compile, but you should still probably lean toward things like ccache/ramdisks/distcc instead of the latest processor. I think the real value is new things like TSX/HLE.
178.
by uxcn 11y ago
That makes sense. Using it as a victim cache seemed kind of odd, but I think it makes more sense now. It seems like it's a still evolving technology. I wonder if there are corresponding performance counters.
179.
by uxcn 11y ago
I'm honestly still trying to figure out the implications of eDRAM. It seems like the main benefit is offloading traffic from the memory bus, particularly now that it's coherent. Am I missing something?
180.
by uxcn 11y ago
According to a comment[1] I read, it's being worked on but jemalloc 3 still isn't enabled by default. I guess it could improve performance for some things, but I think less fragmentation would be the only major win for overall fo

More ›