Sunday, September 4, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 04:39PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 14:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
> It's not my fault you didn't think of it. And people use external
> programs during compile all the time. "make" is a good example, and it
> can also set compile options.
 
LOL. Obviously using code generation tools is not what people mean when
they say "determine at compile time". Determining something at compile
time is what can be achieved by the C++ compiler whilst it is compiling
an individual translation unit. So again you remain incorrect and we
remain correct:
 
It is not possible to determine endianness with a standard conformant
C++ compiler at compile time.
 
/Flibble
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 12:46PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> It is not possible to determine endianness with a standard conformant
> C++ compiler at compile time.
 
> /Flibble
 
The requirement was to determine at compile time whether the system is
big endian or little endian. My solution satisfied that requirement.
End of story.
 
No wonder you can't land a decent job.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 05:51PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 17:46, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> big endian or little endian. My solution satisfied that requirement.
> End of story.
 
> No wonder you can't land a decent job.
 
From the latest printing of the Oxford English Dictionary:
 
obtuse
Pronunciation: /əbˈtjuːs/
ADJECTIVE
1. Jerry Stuckle
'He wondered if this was another case of deliberate Jerry Stuckleness'
 
/Flibble
Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan>: Sep 04 06:54PM +0200

On 04-09-16 17:39, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> It is not possible to determine endianness with a standard conformant
> C++ compiler at compile time.
 
> /Flibble
 
If the answer from Mr Stuckle is not correct, maybe the answer from
Stackoverflow is better?
 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4239993/determining-endianness-at-compile-time
 
bool isLittleEndian()
{
short int number = 0x1;
char *numPtr = (char*)&number;
return (numPtr[0] == 1);
}
 
Create an integer, and read its first byte (least significant byte). If
that byte is 1, then the system is little endian, otherwise it's big endian.
 
(less than 5 minutes of Google...)
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 04 09:58AM -0700

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No wonder you can't land a decent job.
 
Is this the best way to help someone, Jerry? You profess to know
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior ... is this what He said to the woman
caught in the act of adultery? "No wonder you can't be faithful to
your husband" ... Or did He say, "Neither do I condemn you. Go,
and sin no more" ?
 
Who are you serving with belittling speech? Is it Jesus Christ? Or is there
another spirit who seeks to belittle and demean?
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 05:59PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 17:54, Luuk wrote:
> that byte is 1, then the system is little endian, otherwise it's big
> endian.
 
> (less than 5 minutes of Google...)
 
No because isLittleEndian() cannot be called at COMPILE TIME. Try
paying attention.
 
/Flibble
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 01:07PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 12:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> 1. Jerry Stuckle
> 'He wondered if this was another case of deliberate Jerry Stuckleness'
 
> /Flibble
 
Your obsession with me is quite sick. But then that's just like the
troll you are.
 
I suggest you seek psychiatric help quickly.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 01:08PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 12:58 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> another spirit who seeks to belittle and demean?
 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
Rick, I've tried to help Flibbie multiple times. He is incapable of
learning.
 
And I don't need any of your self-righteous preaching. Take it to an
appropriate newsgroup - as so many have asked you to do.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 01:08PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 12:54 PM, Luuk wrote:
> that byte is 1, then the system is little endian, otherwise it's big
> endian.
 
> (less than 5 minutes of Google...)
 
That's not done at compile time - which is what the requirement was.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 04 10:21AM -0700

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Rick, I've tried to help Flibbie multiple times. He is incapable of learning.
 
That is in no way true. One's approach is often the impediment in
how able another is to learn. You must meet all people wheee they
are. And you must teach, not belittle or demean.
 
> And I don't need any of your self-righteous preaching.
 
I am not advocating me, but I am asking you to reflect upon your own
public actions, holding them yourself before Jesus Christ for scrutiny.
He will guide you and temper your responses ... if you'll allow Him.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 06:37PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 18:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Your obsession with me is quite sick. But then that's just like the
> troll you are.
 
> I suggest you seek psychiatric help quickly.
 
You think I am obsessed with you yet I am on the verge of killfiling you
now that I have the full measure of you.
 
/Flibble
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 04 08:19PM +0200

On 04/09/16 15:31, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> does not need wide portability. [...]
 
> I'm afraid you misunderstood my point, which has nothing to
> do with running on multiple platforms.
 
So you are happy that some code is implementation-dependent, and if the
implementation documents a given behaviour it is okay to rely on it?
 
But if code is supposed to be portable (either across different current
toolchains, or to unknown future ones), then you can't rely on it. And
if the implementation seems to work for the given code, but does not
documentation a guarantee, then it may be a very risky thing to rely on
it - but it may be acceptable in certain circumstances.
 
What am I missing, or misunderstanding here?
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 04 08:25PM +0200

On 04/09/16 18:54, Luuk wrote:
> that byte is 1, then the system is little endian, otherwise it's big
> endian.
 
> (less than 5 minutes of Google...)
 
This is done at run-time, just like Jerry's "solution". The difference
is that Jerry takes the output of a function like isLittleEndian(), and
uses it to affect the compilation of a different file (by using it to
generate a header, or something like that - I have forgotten the
details). Of course, Jerry's "solution" is no more of a compile-time
solution than this one is. In fact, it is far worse, because it fails
when doing cross-compilation.
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 05:16PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> You think I am obsessed with you yet I am on the verge of killfiling you
> now that I have the full measure of you.
 
> /Flibble
 
ROFLMAO! You are so obsessed you need to reply to every post I make -
even those not addressed to you.
 
Please - for your own sake, get help. The sooner the better.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 05:18PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 1:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> That is in no way true. One's approach is often the impediment in
> how able another is to learn. You must meet all people wheee they
> are. And you must teach, not belittle or demean.
 
Rick, I've tried many times with Flibbie and others. After a time, it's
no longer worth my effort. I have better things to do in life.
 
> He will guide you and temper your responses ... if you'll allow Him.
 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
You are preaching, and your preaching is not wanted. By me or other
people here, as you have already been told.
 
Real Christians know when religious discussions are appropriate and when
they are not. However, Satan is very insidious in his methods of
driving people away from Christ. Preaching where it is not welcome is
one of them.
 
I would suggest you consider that thought.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 05:20PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 2:25 PM, David Brown wrote:
> details). Of course, Jerry's "solution" is no more of a compile-time
> solution than this one is. In fact, it is far worse, because it fails
> when doing cross-compilation.
 
No, my solution was done at compile time, just like your requirement.
And you never said anything about cross-compilation. Had you done so, I
would have supplied a different solution.
 
But you never do admit you are wrong. This is a perfect example. You
said it could not be done, and I showed you how to do it. So instead of
admitting you were wrong and I was right, you tried to change the
requirements.
 
It doesn't work.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 10:23PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 22:16, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
>> /Flibble
 
> ROFLMAO! You are so obsessed you need to reply to every post I make -
> even those not addressed to you.
 
I reply to any of your posts that are blatantly incorrect: the problem
is that that is the case for almost 100% of them.
 
 
> Please - for your own sake, get help. The sooner the better.
 
Classic example of psychological projection.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 04 10:24PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 22:18, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> driving people away from Christ. Preaching where it is not welcome is
> one of them.
 
> I would suggest you consider that thought.
 
So you believe in the existence a magical sky daddy too do you Stuckle?
That explains quite a lot.
 
/Flibble
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 06:54PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 5:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> even those not addressed to you.
 
> I reply to any of your posts that are blatantly incorrect: the problem
> is that that is the case for almost 100% of them.
 
Sorry, the post was completely correct. You didn't even know the
question, so how could you say the answer was "blatantly incorrect"?
 
Oh, that's because of your obsession with me. You think anything I say
is incorrect.
 
 
>> Please - for your own sake, get help. The sooner the better.
 
> Classic example of psychological projection.
 
> /Flibble
 
Yes, and you have a really bad case of it - in addition to your
obsession with me. You need serious help.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Sep 04 06:56PM -0400

On 9/4/2016 5:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> So you believe in the existence a magical sky daddy too do you Stuckle?
> That explains quite a lot.
 
> /Flibble
 
Ah, once again your obsession shows its ugly face. You are just showing
how bad it is - having to reply to every post I make, whether it applies
to you or not.
 
Do yourself and everyone else a favor. Get help, and quick.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Sep 04 09:37PM +0100

On 04/09/2016 08:56, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> typically Unicode encoded as UTF-8, and since that can be part of the C
> locale.
 
> In Windows it can't.
 
I don't recall the API off the top of my head, but I do recall that you
can set your character set to UTF-8 in Windows.
 
Doubtless not in a portable manner... but then AIUI setting it to
anything else can't be done on Linux.
 
Andy
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 05 12:22AM +0300

On 4.09.2016 23:37, Vir Campestris wrote:
 
>> In Windows it can't.
 
> I don't recall the API off the top of my head, but I do recall that you
> can set your character set to UTF-8 in Windows.
 
Sure you can set it ... but the machine won't boot up again after
restart. At least this was my experience when I last tried that.
 
To be honest, this was with Win7 several years ago. Maybe they have
fixed this meanwhile, if so, it would mean a major breakthrough towards
portable software. But somehow I doubt it.
 
> Doubtless not in a portable manner... but then AIUI setting it to
> anything else can't be done on Linux.
 
If this is so, then probably this is because setting it to anything else
has no point, so no software has been tested with it.
 
Cheers
Paavo
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Sep 04 01:53PM -0700

On 9/3/2016 1:17 AM, Brett Dong wrote:
> my dual core 4-thread CPU.
 
> 2. Measure the time elapsed to calculate how many bits are generated per
> second.
 
Thank you. :^)
 
So far this is modeling a fubar impl of fetch-and-add. I want to see if
I can get some detectable pattern differences in the bits if I model,
say exchange or compare-and-swap, and compare them to each other.
Humm... It would be really neat to take an educated guess at what atomic
primitive might of caused a race condition based on modeling its output
as a stream of bits. Might be fun, or a wild goose chase! Humm...
 
 
 
> 0111110110110101111101000101000001101010111111000000000001101101
> ____________________________________________
> averagely 153.529 bits per second
 
Thanks again! :^D
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Sep 04 01:57PM -0700

On 9/3/2016 5:24 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
 
> Note that people may miss the fun part and consider something
> like that seriously. The '/dev/random' on Unix or 'CryptGenRandom' on
> Windows likely work orders of magnitude faster.
 
Right on. I should have made that point clearer. Now, I did generate
some files based on multiple runs of the data and ran some *tests on
them. They did not do to all that great most of the time. However, when
the system was under load, doing something else, the results were much
better. It like you can see the load of a system, through the patterns a
race-condition generates. Almost like you can see how the system was
scheduling threads.
 
Humm... Could be interesting.
 
____
[*]:FWIW, here is a program I used to run some of the tests:
 
http://www.fourmilab.ch/random
 
It works pretty darn good.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 04 09:33AM -0700

Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> > and it stood fast.
 
> You are wrong here. In C++ we have other creators and _we_
> create them. We just call them constructors.
 
They're at notably different levels of indirection. :-)
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

No comments: