- About PhDs in computer science.. - 14 Updates
- #pragma STDC CX_LIMITED_RANGE - 1 Update
- Looking for some example of stellar code for educational purpose. Any recommendations? - 10 Updates
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 04:47PM -0400 Hello... Read this: About PhDs in computer science.. Look at This PhD paper of a Scalable Concurrent Priority Queue Algorithms: http://people.csail.mit.edu/shanir/publications/SZ-priority.pdf This queue is "not" bound, and i think it uses a mechanism such as an elimination array.. And look at this one of a PhD paper called: Using Elimination to Implement Scalable and Lock-Free FIFO Queues : http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~shanir/nir-pubs-web/Papers/SPAA2005.pdf I think it is not good or perfect because it uses an elimination array, so when there is no contention or no elimination it doesn't scale. But my fully scalable FIFO queue that i have invented has completely "revolutionized" computer science, because it is the "perfect" scalable FIFO queue that is fully scalable even if there is no contention, I have implemented three versions of my scalable FIFO queue, here they are: 1- A fully scalable FIFO queue that is bound and that is not blocking on the producer side and that is blocking on the consumer side. 2- A fully scalable FIFO queue that is unbound and that is not blocking on the producer side and that is blocking on the consumer side. 3- A fully scalable FIFO queue that is bound and that is blocking on the producer side and that is blocking on the consumer side. And i have also invented a fully scalable Threadpool. I will sell them to Embarcadero and to other software companies such as Microsoft and Google etc. Also i will sell them to CAE here, because they need to scale more to many many cores, read here to know about this company: https://www.cray.com/blog/extreme-scaling-in-cae-applications/ Here is CAE company: http://www.cae.com/ And i have also invented a fully scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references, here it is: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 22 09:17PM On 22/03/2018 20:47, computer45 wrote: > scalable FIFO queue that is fully scalable even if there is no > contention, I have implemented three versions of my scalable FIFO queue, > here they are: You are quite delusional you know. There is nothing remarkable about your FIFO queue; FIFO queues have been around for decades. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 05:34PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 5:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > You are quite delusional you know. There is nothing remarkable about > your FIFO queue; FIFO queues have been around for decades. > /Flibble You don't understand , it is a scalable FIFO queue, its throughput will "scale" more and more when you add more cores and more threads. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 22 09:44PM On 22/03/2018 21:34, computer45 wrote: >> /Flibble > You don't understand , it is a scalable FIFO queue, its throughput will > "scale" more and more when you add more cores and more threads. Yes I do understand. Lock-free queues have been around for some time: you are not the first to "invent" one. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 05:48PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 5:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Yes I do understand. Lock-free queues have been around for some time: > you are not the first to "invent" one. > /Flibble You "still" don't understand , Lockfree FIFO queues are not "scalable", mine "is" scalable , its throughput scales "linearly" with more cores and more threads. And it can be easily configured to be waitfree or lockfree or blocking. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 05:52PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 5:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Yes I do understand. Lock-free queues have been around for some time: > you are not the first to "invent" one. > /Flibble More precision.. You "still" don't understand , Lockfree queues or waitfree FIFO queue or blocking FIFO queues are not "scalable", mine "is" scalable , its throughput scales "linearly" with more cores and more threads. And it can be easily configured to be waitfree or lockfree or blocking. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 22 10:00PM On 22/03/2018 21:48, computer45 wrote: > mine "is" scalable , its throughput scales "linearly" with more cores > and more threads. And it can be easily configured to be waitfree or > lockfree or blocking. Yes I do understand. Lock-free FIFO queues are scalable; you haven't invented anything. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 06:04PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 6:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Yes I do understand. Lock-free FIFO queues are scalable; you haven't > invented anything. > /Flibble You "still" don't understand, i know more than you on this subject, Lockfree queues use an "atomic" compare_and_exchange that is like a "lock" and it incurs "contention", so Lockfree queues are "not" scalable, waitfree FIFO queues are not scalable either and blocking FIFO queues are not scalable either. You seem to not understand this subject. Mine "is" scalable , its throughput scales "linearly" with more cores and more threads. And it can be easily configured to be waitfree or lockfree or blocking. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 22 03:20PM -0700 On 3/22/2018 3:04 PM, computer45 wrote: > Mine "is" scalable , its throughput scales "linearly" with more cores > and more threads. And it can be easily configured to be waitfree or > lockfree or blocking. Distributed wait-free queues can be highly scalable. It depends on how you organize them. A clever network of single consumer and single producer wait-free queues does scale. |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 06:26PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 6:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > Distributed wait-free queues can be highly scalable. It depends on how > you organize them. A clever network of single consumer and single > producer wait-free queues does scale. In your configuration of single consumer and single producer wait-free queues , you have to organize them in a distributed manner, but mine doesn't need that, you have to just plug mine and it will work easily and it will be scalable and it can be easily configured to be lockfree or waitfree or blocking. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. You have to organize them in a distributed |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 22 03:28PM -0700 On 3/22/2018 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > Distributed wait-free queues can be highly scalable. It depends on how > you organize them. A clever network of single consumer and single > producer wait-free queues does scale. The actual queue wrt single producer, single consumer (SPSC) can be built without using any atomic RMW's or heavy memory barriers. A network of said queues is pretty nice. Also, we can create a network using different types of queues. Say, a layer of single consumer multi producers queues (MPSC) along with per-thread SPSC. It does work. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 22 03:30PM -0700 On 3/22/2018 3:26 PM, computer45 wrote: > to just plug mine and it will work easily and it will be scalable and > it can be easily configured to be lockfree or waitfree > or blocking. But, yours has to be distributed "under the hood", no? Think of distributed bakery algorithms. Think of each thread having a queue that is registered in a database. |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 06:30PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 6:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > of said queues is pretty nice. Also, we can create a network using > different types of queues. Say, a layer of single consumer multi > producers queues (MPSC) along with per-thread SPSC. It does work. I understand you, but it is not an "ideal" world , we have to provide with mine also, because it is very easy to work with. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane/ |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 22 06:33PM -0400 On 3/22/2018 6:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: Yes, Mine is distributed under the hood", but its advantage also is that it is very easy to work with, no configuration as the distributed single producer single consumer queues. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net>: Mar 22 06:00PM -0400 The C standard, section 7.3.4p2, says: "The usual mathematical formulas for complex multiply, divide, and absolute value are problematic because of their treatment of infinities and because of undue overflow and underflow. The CX_LIMITED_RANGE pragma can be used to inform the implementation that (where the state is ''on'') the usual mathematical formulas are acceptable. ..." Example: consider (a+b*i)*(c+d*i) = (a*c-b*d) + (b*c+a*d)*i. a*c-b*d might have a mathematical value that is representible despite the fact that a*c overflows (if the difference is small enough, it's pretty likely that b*d would overflow, too). There are alternatives to "the usual mathematical formulas" which avoid those problems. Since CX_LIMITED_RANGE is "off" by default, use of those alternatives is normally required by the C standard, which can be a problem, because they are significantly slower than "the usual mathematical formulas", and many uses of complex numbers don't involve calculations where those issues would be a problem. Does std::complex<T> address the same issue in any way, and if so, how? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 21 05:39PM -0700 On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also > > reject thee.. > Speed of light mate. (1) God created the Earth mature. (2) God created the sun, moon, solar system mature. (3) God created all life on Earth full-grown, mature. (4) God created Adam full-grown. (5) God created Eve full grown. (6) God created the stars for us to see, for them to be signs for us. When you load a scene on a space game, do you have to wait years for light from distant stars to reach your spaceship? You give no thought to God, or His abilities. You cage Him in to your own limited mind, casting yourself and your understanding of things in the role of God. You will miss it, Leigh, if you keep your foolish pride up. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 22 12:45AM On 22/03/2018 00:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > your own limited mind, casting yourself and your understanding of things > in the role of God. > You will miss it, Leigh, if you keep your foolish pride up. Speed of light mate. #atheism /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 21 06:00PM -0700 On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 8:46:08 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > in the role of God. > > You will miss it, Leigh, if you keep your foolish pride up. > Speed of light mate. Did you read anything I wrote? > that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." > "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates > a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." This person you quote does not understand that God created everything perfect, and that it was sin which introduced death, disease, destruction, hate, war, famine, and everything else. He thinks only in terms of here and now, of our flesh. He is both short-sighted and misguided. It is why he concludes God is in error, rather than himself being wrong about his current beliefs about God. He is like you, Leigh. Confused. And damned ... unless you repent. You and Peter Cheung... I don't know why I care so deeply for either of you. My flesh tells me to abandon you both. But my spirit tells me to pray for you, and keep reaching out. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 21 08:04PM -0500 > You and Peter Cheung... I don't know why I care so deeply for either > of you. My flesh tells me to abandon you both. But my spirit tells me > to pray for you, and keep reaching out. Speed of light mate. #atheism /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 21 06:11PM -0700 On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 9:05:02 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Speed of light mate. May God Himself open your eyes to the truth, Leigh. May He pour out grace and mercy upon you as He did me, breaking your pride, replacing your error with truth, saving your soul, teaching you love like you've never known. May you prosper greatly in knowledge of the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 21 10:24PM -0700 On 3/21/2018 6:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> to pray for you, and keep reaching out. > Speed of light mate. > #atheism Let us go down the crazy town rabbit hole, for Rick: The speed of light is rendered meaningless by means of amplifying and focusing a gravitational field to create an artificially connected portal. The craft does not travel in a straight line from original point A to destination point B. Instead, it pulls B to itself until a portal is created. The craft at A smoothly glides across, and simply turns the amplified field off. A is automatically at B. The distance between A and B could easily be tens of thousands of light years traveled within an instant, perhaps within a single tick of Plank time. Element 115 mate. Sausages, and Beer. ;^) |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 22 12:51AM -0700 Speed of light mate. #atheism |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 22 01:10AM -0700 Being able to fold space doesn't negate the fact that space would need to be folded in the first place i.e. distances to stellar objects greater than 6000 light years exist that we can observe thus falsifying the 6000 year old universe claim due to the speed of light. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 22 11:15AM +0100 On 21/03/18 23:10, Chris Vine wrote: > type errors to some other code 1000 lines away, or (ii) obfuscate the > intention of the code"; and I prefer leading return types where > syntactically correct. Use auto if it makes the code clearer, makes it easier to write correct code, and makes it harder to write incorrect code. "Shortens your code" should have nothing to do with the decision, any more than cool catch phrases (even if they come from C++ experts). The original justification for "auto" was to avoid figuring out and writing complex template type names for things like iterators - and it works marvellously for that. It is also (obviously) useful for function declarations when you can't give the type in advance. With concepts, it is also a very neat way to declare template functions and classes. But its use in most other circumstances is just as a lazy way of writing the code. Lazy can be good, of course - wasted effort is, well, wasted. It can keep the code shorter and easier to read. But it can also lead to unexpected effects due to unwarranted assumptions, or code that is unclear because you don't know what type things are, and it reduces some of the scope for the compiler to check your code. If "foo()" returns a double but you think it returns an "int", and you write "int x = foo();", then your compiler can warn you of the potential mistake (if it has appropriate warnings, and they are enabled). If you write "auto x = foo();", your error goes unnoticed and affects things later on somewhere. Concepts can give a nice middle ground here - if you write "Number x = bar();", then you are telling the compiler to make x of whatever Number type bar() returns - but you want an error if bar() returns a string. |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 22 05:19AM -0700 That's easy: if the return type is a scalar then don't use auto otherwise use auto. |
| 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:
Post a Comment