- The Rapture (Reprise ad infinitum) - 12 Updates
- Undefined Behaviour - 4 Updates
- template madness - 8 Updates
- cmsg cancel <pn451b$kc8$4@dont-email.me> - 1 Update
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 08:03PM -0400 On 09/11/2018 06:30 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: > geology, all physics, astronomy, paleontology and whatever other > science. It is totally pointless to discuss. > For example geology: Tens of millions of years You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. So the rest of your statement is invalid. > From what? If cover all dry land with thick forest and then turn that all > into coal then there are still several orders of magnitude of material > missing and we are only talking about single geological layer from Carboniferous. What can be there even to discuss? There are people who say that. I do not say that. I say that God put all of the resources we have in the Earth in the Earth when He built it. In the book of Job He refers to when He laid "the foundations of the Earth." We read about in the book of Revelation about the New Jerusalem, and how it has twelve sep- arate foundations of single crystals. Is it outside the realm of possibility that God created the Earth in layers, depositing those things we would later use, and that mankind has simply come across these layers and assumed they were put down over time because that's what we would expect apart from a creation model which has them there from the day the Earth was built? It comes down to seeking after the truth, Öö Tiib. If you are looking for the truth, God will lead you to it. If you are not looking for the truth, the enemy of God will lead you to something you can think is the truth (at least you can think that while you're here on this Earth, once you die and get to the other side then you will know the truth, and the falseness you were in pursuit of will be put to shame by the truth). God has an interest in saving your soul. He puts all of His information before you and invites you to come and prove Him out. He invites you to put Him to the test. He invites you to try and seek out the real answer to something to see if you are able to find fault with Him. Give it a try. Press in hard and seek to disprove what God has given us in the Bible, in its explanation of the things around us. You will not be able to find fault. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Sep 11 01:17PM -0700 > Funny how the bible claims that we're all descended from 2 people yet incest > is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that > contradictory circle. I always thought there were people in the land of Nod. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 12 08:18AM +1200 On 12/09/18 01:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > variations of people types that we see (the Eskimos, those with blonde > hair, blue eyes, green eyes, dark skin, red skin, yellow skin, long legs, > short legs, wide faces, narrow faces, etc.). And the Neanderthals (who weren't into C++ either) who gave us some of our DNA? Oh wait, they died out before the earth was created. Tough one that. -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 04:31PM -0400 On 9/11/2018 4:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that >> contradictory circle. > I always thought there were people in the land of Nod. You should point some of that high-powered intellect you apply toward decryption algorithms toward a one-evening study of the book of Genesis to remove your wrong thinking with facts. There were people in the land of Nod ... AFTER Adam and Eve had them. If you read in Genesis 5, you'll come across where it says when Adam was 130 years old he lay with Eve and she conceived Seth, and "they had other sons and daughters." Adam and Eve began having children shortly after they were banished. They may have had their first child ~9 months after being created, be- cause before sin they would not have disobeyed God. And we know that God gave them a command to be fruitful and multiply. But we also know that Cain was born outside of Eden, indicating Adam and Eve's time in the garden was not long, only a few months at most, and more likely, only a few days or weeks. All of the people came from Adam and Eve, and their children who then began having children, who followed with more children, etc. All of these questions are answered by study. And all of them have half-answers and wrong answers given by the world by people who have not looked intently into the Word of God studying it. All such people who causally glance at the truth, but do not pursue so as to know it and own that pursuit of it, will be left behind because they embraced the lie, and would not seek the truth. You can read Genesis 1-11 in a short stretch. The entire rest of the Bible is based upon an understanding of what happened there: Genesis 1-11 in scripture (and you can read the NIV, ESV, or other version if you prefer more modern English, but go back to the KJV for the truest conveyance of the original language message): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-11&version=KJV ----- Here's a video giving you a 40,000 foot flyover of the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQI72THyO5I Genesis 12-50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4isSyennFo That overview does not go into details, and is glosses over a great many important things, but it is a high-level starting point that will pique the curiosity of those seeking the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 12 08:19AM +0200 On 12/09/18 02:03, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> For example geology: Tens of millions of years > You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. > So the rest of your statement is invalid. Some people might say that about /your/ arguments... |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 11 11:39PM -0700 On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 03:04:08 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > For example geology: Tens of millions of years > You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. > So the rest of your statement is invalid. The radiometric dating shows that age of Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billions of years old and we have known it for a century. Refuting the facts with hand-waving is invalid. > come across these layers and assumed they were put down over > time because that's what we would expect apart from a creation > model which has them there from the day the Earth was built? He put the countless fossils of those ferns and scale trees into lignites and coals. Why? Carboniferous isn't even the oldest fossil-rich geologic layer. Massive amounts of mineralized fossils of multi-cellular lifeforms in all rock layers started from two hundred millions of years earlier, from Cambrian. > that while you're here on this Earth, once you die and get to > the other side then you will know the truth, and the falseness > you were in pursuit of will be put to shame by the truth). Truth can't be found from fairy tales. If there is god then he wrote the world, the galaxies, stars and the rocks. Not fairy tale books in Hebrew. > Give it a try. Press in hard and seek to disprove what God > has given us in the Bible, in its explanation of the things > around us. You will not be able to find fault. What is there to disprove? My mother and father made me. They do not deny it. I did not have any souls before I did born. My oldest memories start from time when I was two or three years old. There were gods nowhere telling me what to do. Fairy tales I started to read from age of 4. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 12 08:43PM +1200 On 12/09/18 12:03, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> For example geology: Tens of millions of years > You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. > So the rest of your statement is invalid. Pot, kettle? -- Ian. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 12 12:48PM >On 09/11/2018 06:30 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: >You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. >So the rest of your statement is invalid. PKB. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 12 09:54AM -0400 On 9/12/2018 2:19 AM, David Brown wrote: >> You begin here with an assertion you assume, but cannot prove. >> So the rest of your statement is invalid. > Some people might say that about /your/ arguments... That's the point. The arguments of "millions of years" or "billions of years" is unprovable. People are asked to take it on faith, and even that the science-so-called they use to "prove" it is accurate. The truth is, none of us were here before we were born. And none of our written history goes back beyond a few thousand years. There are things we think are older, but we don't know ... because we weren't there. When you look at the Bible in whole, how it describes man's behavior, why we have evil in this world, why we often try to do what's right and still fail, the prophecies of the past that came true, and the up- coming prophecies which are aligning with what the Bible teaches and has taught for thousands of years ... I choose to trust God, because I know what He says about my sin, and I know that He is right about me, and I know that when I came to Him in 2004 asking forgiveness I was changed ... and each of you can see the fruit of that change in the way I conduct my life to this day, 14+ years later. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 12 08:56PM +0100 On 11/09/2018 16:28, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > of God ... but even then, through intelligent reason an conjecture, > couldn't an all-powerful God do miracles? Of course He could. So > even those miracles stand up to our reason. If God is able microwave a burrito so that it is too hot even for God to eat then surely God isn't all-powerful as the burrito is too hot even for God to eat. God is a category error. Speed of light mate. /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." |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 13 09:56AM +1200 On 13/09/18 01:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > That's the point. The arguments of "millions of years" or "billions > of years" is unprovable. People are asked to take it on faith, and > even that the science-so-called they use to "prove" it is accurate. So what you are saying is your god is a joker who created a universe where all of the physical evidence points to it being billions of years old just to trick people? Yeah right! -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 12 06:01PM -0400 On 9/12/2018 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > So what you are saying is your god is a joker who created a universe where > all of the physical evidence points to it being billions of years old just to > trick people? No. I'm saying He implemented a system that is wholly integrated, and then put man in that system. It's as I've said before ... for video game scenes, we load from our databases all of the components to make the things in those games exist. We can load entire solar systems for space games. All manner of fish and coral and what not for marine games, etc. Think of God creating Adam. He would've had to have already distributed nutrients to the various storehouses in the body. It could not be that Adam woke up famished and dehydrated. God is comprehensive, complete, and amazing. You should get to know Him, Ian, rather than badmouthing Him and those like me who are His. > Yeah right! Yeah. Right. :-) -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 11 06:14PM -0400 > >MIME. > >Thank you for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you. > 24 hours and thats the best you can come up with? Short, precise, and on the point, is the only requirement. No need to be verbose. And I do not have a specific posting schedule. I choose to grace you with my presence whenever I feel like it. Sometimes it's very often, sometimes it's every once in a while. You never know, so it's always a pleasant surprise, and that's how I like it. > Where it came from doesn't matter, Let's ignore facts that are somewhat inconvenient, ok? > the fact is you don't need MIME in a usenet post which brings us back > full circle. You also don't need a "Subject:" header either. Or a valid "From:" header either; none of which are required by NNTP. It seems that whatever point you were trying to make by that: it's so profound, so mind-blowing, and so Earth- shattering, that you are the only person in the world who actually knows what it is. > >It means "you don't know what you're talking about". > Is that yankie for "Excuse me while I escape from this corner I've painted > myself in to"? You misspelled "yankee". I wouldn't normally make a point of it, but you seem to be quite particular and sensitive to spelling and proper grammar, according to your prior scribbling. So it's only fair that you should be held up to the same standards you expect from everyone else. Oh, and it's "Mr. Yankee" do you. > Woah, "ascii-armoured", thats a big impressive phrase! Armour! Tough and > manly! > No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) It's not my term. I am just a mere conveyance of accurate and truthful information. Your allergic reaction to factual statements is not something that modern science can cure, so I won't try myself. > encoding > when referring to Base64." > ^^^^^^ Congratulations for mastering the art of copying and pasting. I'm sure you're very proud of your accomplishment, and you're expecting someone to pat you on the head for it. Unfortunately, your hyper-active cranial matter failed to note that the content in question was explicitly identified as carrying a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME type which is defined in RFC 3165 and specified this explicit format. If you don't like how this standard works, I'm afraid there's nothing that I can do about it, and you will need to take your complaints to the IETF, instead of me. Or, perhaps, you're having your nervous breakdown because you believe that I implemented this standard incorrectly. You are more than welcome to cite a specific section, and identify, with specificity, how this particular implementation is non-compliant with that particular standard. I welcome the opportunity to correct an implementation error. But, regretfully, you've yet to demonstrate that not only that you're in possession of a clue at this precise moment in time; but you even know what a clue looks like, how big it is, whether it's alive, or dead, or pining for the fjords; and whether you ever had one, and know how you can tell one apart from a wet fart. Before you can even begin to argue Internet standards with me you have to actually know them, and understand what they are and how they work. That's a skill you've yet to master, young padawan. Copying and pasting the only sentences from Wikipedia that you managed to understand, in part, will not be sufficient. And until such time that one of the standards- setting, acronym organizations come to you, for assistance with relevant matters, you will continue flail, fail, and flame out every time, before your mental superiors. Finally, I regret to inform you that a wikipedia article is not authoritative when it comes to Internet standards. That's obviously something that you know very little, if any, about. Not that any information sourced from Wikipedia is always inaccurate, of course. Many times it's quite accurate but before you can actually use it, as a crutch, you have to understand what it means, and to what exactly it applies. Just because you recognie a few words of it doesn't mean that it actually applies to whatever subject matter you're trying to wrap your brain around. > Have another 24 hours to think up a good backpedal for this why don't you. Have you picked up your consolation prizes, yet? It includes a copy of my original helloworld.cpp, that was written even before the obsolete newsreader that you're using, while you were still in diapers. It comes autographed and with a certificate of authenticity. It's very rare, and valuable. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 11 06:15PM -0400 Scott Lurndal writes: > Actually, the headers in USENET articles are defined in RFC 1036, not RFC > 822. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1036 "Obsoleted by: RFC 5536, RFC 5537". You may wish to consider checking into this late-breaking newsflash, that came out in November of 2009. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 12 09:08AM On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:14:32 -0400 >> Where it came from doesn't matter, >Let's ignore facts that are somewhat inconvenient, ok? Its origin doesn't matter. It exists, MIME is NOT required. >> the fact is you don't need MIME in a usenet post which brings us back >> full circle. >You also don't need a "Subject:" header either. Or a valid "From:" header Really? My NNTP server thinks otherwise: 441 Missing required From: header 441 Required Subject: header is missing Anything else you feel like getting wrong while you're at it? You've got quite a list of bloopers so far. >were trying to make by that: it's so profound, so mind-blowing, and so Earth- >shattering, that you are the only person in the world who actually knows >what it is. The point was pretty simple. Unfortunately it has proved completely beyond you to comprehend it. >You misspelled "yankee". I wouldn't normally make a point of it, but you >seem to be quite particular and sensitive to spelling and proper grammar, >according to your prior scribbling. Its slang. It can be spelt however you want. >> manly! >> No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) >It's not my term. I am just a mere conveyance of accurate and truthful Its a term you didn't understand. >Congratulations for mastering the art of copying and pasting. I'm sure >you're very proud of your accomplishment, and you're expecting someone to >pat you on the head for it. Well since you're incapable of using google someone has to point you to some relevant material. >Unfortunately, your hyper-active cranial matter failed to note that the >content in question was explicitly identified as carrying a >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature And? Its still base64 encoded, something you denied. Any other not-up-for- debate facts you wish to deny or are you done for the week? [rest of tl;dr drivel snipped] You can always tell when someones on the back foot when they post a mini dissertation to try and put their point across. Give it rest mate, honestly its just laughable. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 12 05:59PM -0400 > >> Where it came from doesn't matter, > >Let's ignore facts that are somewhat inconvenient, ok? > Its origin doesn't matter. It exists, MIME is NOT required. You still failed to wrap your brain around what "required" actually means. And you still insist that someone around here stated that MIME is required to post to Usenet… Well, when you find that someone, let me know, so I can also set him/her/it straight. > Really? My NNTP server thinks otherwise: > 441 Missing required From: header > 441 Required Subject: header is missing Your NNTP server is not an authoritative source of the NNTP specification. Sorry to have confused you with facts. The current NNTP specification is RFC 3977. I'll wait until you find which part of it makes "From:" and "Subject:" headers required for NNTP transport. Please make sure to mention the section and paragraph number in your response. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm going to try to teach you something, and we'll see if my efforts will go for naught: just because a there's no requirement for something, unless it's prohibited an individual implementation is allowed to implement it. NNTP does not require a mandatory "From:" or "Subject:" header. This does not prohibit individual NNTP servers from requiring it. Each NNTP server is free to implement its own policies for transporting and distributing messages. Just because your NNTP server requires them doesn't mean that every NNTP server in the world does too, or that it's required by NNTP. Do you always blather off on subject matter you have no clue about, or are you just making a special exception, just for me? Just curious. I have a sneaky feeling that we're just about to find out, in mere moments… > Anything else you feel like getting wrong while you're at it? You've got > quite > a list of bloopers so far. Are you auditioning for the role of the Black Knight, in the upcoming Monty Python remake? For some reason I think that you have a pretty good chance of landing the role. > The point was pretty simple. Unfortunately it has proved completely beyond > you > to comprehend it. It can't be simple. After all, if it were, you would be able to explain it. Or cite an authoritative reference for this mysterious NNTP requirement of whose existance you're absolutely sure of, but just can't find any evidence. Must be some kind of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, to make you look like an abject fool, right? > >seem to be quite particular and sensitive to spelling and proper grammar, > >according to your prior scribbling. > Its slang. It can be spelt however you want. Unfortunately, the historical custom of this, very fine, newsgroup is that we all must strive to always use King's English. Not slang. You can leave that for Facebook. > >> No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) > >It's not my term. I am just a mere conveyance of accurate and truthful > Its a term you didn't understand. You're projecting. You seem to be impressed by the term "ASCII armor". It's as if you've never heard of it before. You reacted as if this was the first time you've read someone using this term, and, once again, ass-umed that it's just a personal term of mine. It's not, grasshopper. You claim "thats [sic] a big impressive phrase". You even used an exclamation mark, to underscore your surprise at this curious term, that you're so unfamiliar with. Well, in fact, "--armor" is the literal, actual name of an actual gpg command line option, Einstein, which requests this fascinating task to be accomplished by gpg. Would you care for a link to online documentation? Yes, indeed, you found "ASCII armor" to be a very unusual choice of words for describing what you get by running the "gpg" command using the "--armor" option. That pretty much sums up your latest, self-hoisted petard. This option existed for several decades now. I can't make this stuff up. Just curious: have you ever wondered why so many people point their fingers in your direction, and laugh? Have you even executed the gpg command, just once, with any option? Do you know how to manage your public and private keyrings, and do the usual kind of pgp-ish stuff? You obviously know nothing about it, you don't know about the "--armor" option, but you think you have the qualifications to discuss PGP signing of Internet messages. I guess you'll just have to add one more failure, to your impressive resume of flameouts. This turns out to be a fairly common, standard term used in PGP technical documentation, since the beginning; and the term is now commonly used in general technical documentation also. Your unfamiliarity with it accidentally reveals the fact that you were trying, valiantly, to discuss a highly technical subject matter you don't know anything about. If you did know anything about it, the term would not've been such a surprise, and you would not've made an issue out of it. After all, the "--armor" option is one of the common ones, and in fact is the precise option that generates the PGP signature which caused so much confusion on your part. But that's ok, by making an issue out of it you've just underscored your own level of dumbassetry. But there's a bigger issue besides your fascination with this latest shining ball, called "ASCII armor" (oooh!, big fancy words!); specifically your general confusion about the fundamental difference between MIME base64 encoding and PGP ASCII Armoring; leading you to believe they're one and the same just because both use the same alphabet. Unfortunately that's not the case, and they serve fundamentally distinct purposes. Get back to me when you've figured it out, and finally read the referenced application/pgp- signature MIME type specification, that gives, pretty much, a verbatim equivalent of the original snippet of the message that included the Ascii- armored signature. Did you know that an option called "--armor" was used to generate it? If you still believe that you're looking at MIME base64 encoding, then maybe you should write their authors and tell them they've got it wrong, and that you know better. Really, why haven't you, yet, reviewed the application/pgp-signature spec? Can't find it? Too many long words, that your brain can't absorb? Or you did read it, but are too ashamed to admit how full of crap you are? Which is the case? > >pat you on the head for it. > Well since you're incapable of using google someone has to point you to some > relevant material. Maybe, maybe not. When you find that someone, let me know. Sounds like very useful service, having someone else Google something for me, instead of doing it myself. That must be what that "Google Assistant" gizmo, that I keep hearing about in the news, is all about. Perhaps that Google Assistant can help you find the application/pgp-signature MIME specification, so that you can enlighten yourself. Or, perhaps, your Google Assistant can help you find scores of articles explaining what ASCII armoring is, since you've never heard of it before. > >content in question was explicitly identified as carrying a > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > And? It's something that called a "fact". You should invest a few minutes in learning what that word means, and what application/pgp-signature's specification says. > Its still base64 encoded, something you denied. It is not MIME base-64 encoded, you are simply incapable of understanding the difference between PGP ASCII armoring, MIME content, and MIME content transfer encoding. It's a very nuanced, but a very important, distinction. A distinction you are clearly incapable of understanding. Too many big words… Too many big concepts… I really can't understand why can't someone just write a large coloring book, to help people like you understand these complicated things? And even include a box of crayons, to make the whole thing easier. > Any other not-up-for- > debate facts you wish to deny or are you done for the week? Well, here's one "not-up-for-debate fact": you are a clueless dummy with a severe case of delusion of self-grandeur, who thinks that he/she/it is hot stuff because he/she/it can successfully compile helloworld.cpp in Visual Studio. I am not going to deny that. Grow up, young man/woman/non-gendered-entity (just doing my part to be inclusive); you're in the adult world now, and what you think you know, doesn't really amount to much. Which is why you must pay attention, and make careful notes, when your mental superiors are schooling you. There is slight, just a slight, chance that you might understand and learn something. Which would be a step forward; but even if not, at least you've tried. But you're not even trying. And that's a shame. All those helpless, innocent electrons, being sacrificed on the altar of Usenet, just in order for your shining paragon of ignorance to make it to every corner of the world, and for everyone to laugh at it. Although we, mere mortals, certainly gain some enjoyment, we can't ignore the utter waste of useful energy that was needed to propagate such rubbish. Win some, lose some, I guess. > [rest of tl;dr drivel snipped] Oh, please. It's quite you've read every word of it. And loved it. Just like you've read every word of this, and despite being embarrased at daring to try to match wits with your mental superior, you found your experience to be strangely to your liking. > You can always tell when someones on the back foot when they post a mini > dissertation to try and put their point across. Give it rest mate, honestly > its just laughable. Nope. Why would I give up on free entertainment? And you call /that/ a dissertation? You really have low standards. Maybe it would be a dissertation of a lifetime for you, but my record for a Usenet flame racks up to about a 3000 line post, as I recall*. This, right here – what you're reading right now – is nothing. Absolutely nothing, compared to the flames of long ago, in a galaxy far-far away. You've yet to learn much, young padawan. *Of course, I had some, shall we say… technical assistance in writing it up. But let this be our little secret, just between you and me. Nobody else needs to know, and may the schwartz be with you. |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 11 10:36PM On Fri, 2018-09-07, Richard Damon wrote: ... > This is of course mostly useful in the debugging environment, where such > things are available and useful. In production code, yes, you likely > want to catch the error earlier and perform cleanup. Why the "of course"? Faults in live and other non-debugging environments are not exactly unheard of. I don't want the evidence cleaned away in such a scenario. (Although it may, for some programs, be even more important to save valuable data or similar.) /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 11 03:48PM -0700 On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 6:26:24 PM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-07, jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: ... > assert, and don't want to enter it permanently. Just to clarify my > view a bit: I believe that if it matters whether I disable assert(), > I have a bug. Agreed. Disabling assert() is something you should only do when you have no more than an acceptable amount of uncertainty about whether there are any uncaught bugs that might be caught by the asserts. You can never completely eliminate that risk, but that risk can, depending upon circumstances, be arbitrarily small. The key point is that risk might be small enough that some other issue is sufficient to justify taking that risk. The usual justification for disabling it is that the test it performs is too expensive to put in the delivered code - it can only be a single expression, but even in C, that could involve a call to an arbitrarily expensive function call. In C++, operator overloads can make code very expensive to execute which would seem completely innocuous if interpreted as C code. Another justification is that the text of the assert message could give the user information about the program that the developer doesn't want the user to have. As I said, I don't like assert(), so I'm giving advice that applies solely to people other than myself - feel free to judge the value of my advice accordingly. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 11 03:58PM -0700 On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 01:27:54 UTC+3, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > >> %g format specifier. > > That was rhetorical, tongue in cheek? > No; I genuinely didn't understand. Because someone stupid turns it off to save 2% of performance or 10% of binary size. Then someone smart discovers a way how to exploit it. After that there is potentially a hard to discover full backdoor instead of guaranteed easy to patch denial-of-service vector. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 11 04:25PM -0700 On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 01:26:24 UTC+3, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > assert, and don't want to enter it permanently. Just to clarify my > view a bit: I believe that if it matters whether I disable assert(), > I have a bug. I believe that when C++ programs are written then either those are useless or these contain bugs or someone has found a trick how to hire omnipotent beings as C++ programmers. ;) |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 11 10:26PM > compiler, but to other people maintaining the code. If it is in fact > not acceptable, I'm going to blame your use of assert() for being > misleading, not their use of -DNDEBUG. I think I might have inadvertently stepped into an old debate about assert, and don't want to enter it permanently. Just to clarify my view a bit: I believe that if it matters whether I disable assert(), I have a bug. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 11 10:27PM On Sat, 2018-09-08, Öö Tiib wrote: >> Why? I don't define my own std::printf() just because I never use the >> %g format specifier. > That was rhetorical, tongue in cheek? No; I genuinely didn't understand. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Sep 12 09:47AM -0500 On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 03:04:23 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >> is only one that it is not directly portable to (but could be shimmed >> on windows). >All platforms that lack virtual memory also lack mmap. Without paging hardware, it would indeed be hard to implement mmap (at least fully), but actually implementing virtual memory (with the same paging hardware) is not quite the same thing (although if you implement one, you've done a fair bit of the work needed for the other). Most android platforms, for example, support mmap, but don't implement virtual memory. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 12 10:47AM -0700 > other). > Most android platforms, for example, support mmap, but don't implement > virtual memory. Android definitely uses virtual memory, only swap space is not enabled in its kernel. Twelve minute lecture about it: https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-virtual-memory-gary-explains-747960/ |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 11 04:54PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| 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