- Love God, Love People - 4 Updates
- Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer - 5 Updates
- Jesus Fucking Christ.. - 2 Updates
- Equivalent unary operators for BSF and BSR - 6 Updates
- A Standard Proposal: Remove forward declaration requirements - 3 Updates
- Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Religions For Truth - 4 Updates
- Profanity in this channel - 1 Update
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jul 31 10:31AM > Jesus Christ will forgive all who come to Him asking forgiveness. > He will even forgive vile people. He wants to save us more than > He wants to judge us because He loves us. Why don't you just go away, you lying hypocrite piece of shit? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:55AM -0700 It reads, "Love," Juha. "Love." Much Love, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Jul 31 07:54AM -0700 On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:28:30 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Trust in God and God's ways. Live your life for Him. And don't screw anyone unless they're bent over! |
| Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com>: Jul 31 05:17PM -0400 On 31/07/2017 15:54, Daniel wrote: > And don't screw anyone unless they're bent over! Instead of reading that idiot's posts why don't you try to learn something new: > poorly understood, confusing features of C++ that, in our experience, > bring more > grief than benefit. The religious person is here to destroy these newsgroups and there are people using profanity to indirectly support him in his objectives. My filter list is getting bigger and bigger. Everybody should do the same to reduce the traffic on this <and on C newsgroup> newsgroup. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 31 08:28AM -0700 Shalom I want to join in the reindeer games here: https://github.com/thekvs/cpp-serializers , but when I run make, there's a problem when it tries to build capnproto. Something about it not being able to convert a template argument from bool to capnp::Kind. What to do? Thanks. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Ben Shapiro over at dailywire.com does a good job of figuring out who is telling the truth and who is lying. http://webEbenezer.net |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jul 31 06:04PM +0200 > to build capnproto. Something about it not being able > to convert a template argument from bool to capnp::Kind. > What to do? Thanks. I would suggest you start by reading <http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>. Then you might like to think about whether people in this newsgroup could have the slightest idea about how to help you with a third party build of a fourth party library. Following that reality check, you might then try to look at the error message you got, and perhaps some of the source code. Look at the readmes, documentation and build instructions, and see if you have followed them correctly. Try contacting the github project maintainer, or perhaps the capnproto maintainer. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 31 09:44AM -0700 On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:04:44 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > readmes, documentation and build instructions, and see if you have > followed them correctly. Try contacting the github project maintainer, > or perhaps the capnproto maintainer. Hi David, I did read the Readme, but noticed something now that I didn't do. I'll try to do that and see what happens. Brian |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 31 10:10AM -0700 > Hi David, > I did read the Readme, but noticed something now that I > didn't do. I'll try to do that and see what happens. I tried it now, but get the same problem. What I didn't do was create a build directory and run cmake and make from that directory. But now I tried it that way also and get the same error. Thanks for the suggestion to contact the guy who developed the benchmark. I sent him an email and asked him about it. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 31 01:52PM -0700 > same error. Thanks for the suggestion to contact the guy > who developed the benchmark. I sent him an email and asked > him about it. I posted on a capnproto mailing list and got this reply: It looks like the project you reference is hard-coded to download Cap'n Proto version 0.5.3. The bug you describe was fixed in 0.5.3.1 and 0.6.0. I suggest updating the project to the current release, 0.6.1. --------------------------------------------------------- These sorts of problems could be minimized by using on-line code generators. But I know, that's crazy talk. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 31 12:39AM -0700 Leigh, why some people seem to think that they behaving kook does somehow change anything in any direction in this world? It is just boring and aesthetically ugly ... and that is it. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 31 05:02PM +0100 On 31/07/2017 08:39, Öö Tiib wrote: > Leigh, why some people seem to think that they behaving kook does somehow > change anything in any direction in this world? It is just boring and aesthetically > ugly ... and that is it. Being blasphemous isn't "kook"; blasphemy being a crime is "kook". /Flibble |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jul 31 12:25PM >highest (BSR) set bit (a bit with a 1 in it). > BSF: https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_19.html > BSR: https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_20.html $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_ffs $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_clz |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jul 31 02:36PM +0200 On 31/07/17 14:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> BSR: https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_20.html > $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_ffs > $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_clz That is a fine mixture between useful and useless information. These builtins in gcc are certainly useful references for Rick here, but the best that can be said of "info" is that some people have got used to it enough to find it useful. Web links will more helpful to most people: <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fclz> <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fctz> <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fffs> |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:36AM -0400 On 7/31/2017 8:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> BSR: https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_20.html > $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_ffs > $ info gcc --index-search=__builtin_clz Thank you, Scott. I was able to find __builtin_ffs() and __builtin_clz() here: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jul 31 02:41PM >builtins in gcc are certainly useful references for Rick here, but the >best that can be said of "info" is that some people have got used to it >enough to find it useful. I can't disagree - I find 'info' almost useless. Give me a flat man page anyday. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jul 31 04:58PM +0200 On 31/07/17 16:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> enough to find it useful. > I can't disagree - I find 'info' almost useless. Give me a flat man > page anyday. Man pages are good for small things. For larger references, I like pdf files (they are also handy for referencing the exact version of gcc - I have a dozen or so different versions on my system, for various targets). But the web page versions are great for references like this. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jul 31 03:02PM >files (they are also handy for referencing the exact version of gcc - I >have a dozen or so different versions on my system, for various >targets). But the web page versions are great for references like this. $ man large-man-page | col -b > /tmp/b && vim /tmp/b && rm /tmp/b A simple shell function. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jul 31 10:41AM > I think some kind of compiler switch which disables the forward- > declaration requirement, allowing an additional pass to be run on > source code to resolve unknown references would be desirable. You can compile a compilation unit into an object file, a statically linked file, or a dynamically linked file. Even when compiling simply to an object file, the compiler might not, at that point, have any access to the definition of a function in some other source of object file. It's only at linking time that all the object files come together. How exactly is the compiler supposed to create the object file when it can't see the function being called? This requires more than just a function pointer to be set later. The parameters need to be put onto the stack. The compiler can't know, without seeing the function declaration, how it should put them there (eg. if you give an int as parameter, but the function takes a double, the compiler needs to do a conversion; it can't do that if it can't see that the function is taking a double). It becomes even more complicated with dynamically linked libraries. Those may not be available at compile or even link time at all, only at run time. |
| bartc <bc@freeuk.com>: Jul 31 11:56AM +0100 On 31/07/2017 11:41, Juha Nieminen wrote: > It becomes even more complicated with dynamically linked libraries. > Those may not be available at compile or even link time at all, > only at run time. I think you're posting at cross-purposes. As I understand it, the proposal is about relaxing requirements for forward declarations of functions in the /same/ translation unit. Not for eliminating declarations of functions in other modules (ie. pretty much doing away with header files). As those wouldn't be /forward/ declarations (more sideways ones). So it means being able to write this: ----------------------------- int main(void) { fn(10,20);} void fn(float a,int b) {} ----------------------------- instead of: ----------------------------- void fn(float,int); // forward declaration of fn int main(void) { fn(10,20);} void fn(float a,int b) {} ----------------------------- or: ----------------------------- void fn(float a,int b) {} // re-ordering functions int main(void) { fn(10,20);} ----------------------------- -- bartc |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:33AM -0400 On 7/31/2017 6:41 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > It becomes even more complicated with dynamically linked libraries. > Those may not be available at compile or even link time at all, > only at run time. I do not advocate forward-declarations that are unknown across object files, but only within a single compilation. In many cases doing this will fail: #include "file1.h" #include "file2.h" ...because there are dependencies in file1.h which require the information that's declared in file2.h. You must order them as: #include "file2.h" #include "file1.h" But what can also happen is file1.h and file2.h both have some dependencies on each other, so that if any members are referenced the compilation will fail. My goal in removing the requirement of having forward-declaration is to resolve this issue so that something needs only be defined somewhere in the compilation, and not before it's first referenced. Many other languages have done away with the forward-declaration requirement. It seems to be a proper thing for a compiler running on modern hardware in 2017. There's nothing to prevent a compiler from NOT implementing the relaxation, and to maintain things as they are. In fact, I think it would be essential for this relaxation to be only a feature that can be turned on, and not a default feature. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jul 31 10:30AM > People do not earn their way into Heaven. It is the free gift of > God to all who will receive Jesus, receive His sacrifice, and ask > Him to forgive their sin. You did not answer my post. Why? Because you know you are a liar and a hypocrite. You think that your words are magic, but they are not. They are nothing but you being a condescending smug lying hypocrite. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:53AM -0700 Juha, you can find all kinds of failures with me. I am just a man. But I'm not advocating me, nor my words, but rather Jesus and His words. You'll be unable to find fault with Him, or His words. I need Him to forgive me just like everybody else does. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 31 05:03AM -0700 Rick, why some people seem to think that they behaving kook does somehow change anything in any direction in this world? It is just boring and aesthetically ugly ... and that is it. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:28AM -0400 On 7/31/2017 8:03 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: > Rick, why some people seem to think that they behaving kook does somehow > change anything in any direction in this world? It is just boring and aesthetically > ugly ... and that is it. I know. People only look at the person giving the message and, because they are just a person like them, are able to label them summarily with disparaging names like "kook" or "hypocrite." They don't seem to realize the messenger is not the message, but the one they're pointing to is the message. That inability to receive the root message is the source of ALL of the confusion involved. It breaks my heart because people are willing to sacrifice hearing the true message and intent of the message because they judge the messenger on his merits, and the messengers unwaveringly come up short. It's such a loss. ----- I do not advocate Rick. Or any other pastor, preacher, evangelist, or teacher. I would not point you to them for any salvation or true help. I would point you only to Jesus Christ. And then, after you have found merit in Jesus Christ, I would point you to others who can help teach you those things He first taught us, but only then under the direct, purposeful, and focused scrutiny of a discerning heart, one who compares anything we might say with the true and foundational words of Jesus Christ. What we teach must align with His teachings, or else they have no merit, and are to be rebuked. But if they do align with His teachings, then it is as though He is teaching you directly ... He's just doing so through us and our conveyance of His message for you. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid>: Jul 30 08:57PM -0700 > Brian > Ebenezer Enterprises - Be joyful, patient and faithful. > http://webEbenezer.net Fuck off. And, he's not swearing as the bible defines it, so fuck off again. |
| 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. |
