Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>: Oct 03 01:42AM

Scott Lurndal wrote:
 
> Don't be an idiot. Don't put the onus on others for your trespasses. Don't
> trespass on this group and everything will be fine and everyone (except you)
> will be happy.
 
Does puking over these groups actually make him happy? Or is it a show
to browbeat us into orthodoxy? Truth is lies. Love is hate. Peace is
war. etc.
 
--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 02 07:00PM -0700

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 04:42:43 UTC+3, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > trespass on this group and everything will be fine and everyone (except you)
> > will be happy.
 
> Does puking over these groups actually make him happy?
 
Yes. He feels that he accomplishes something that way. Lack of progress
with his calives and what were there makes him to feel full of shit. So
he goes and vomits some of it out in his posts how everybody else are
blinded and possessed by his demons.
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Oct 03 07:10AM

In article <a23bd6a4-8969-4cfe-af49-934c71660698@googlegroups.com>,
>with his calives and what were there makes him to feel full of shit. So
>he goes and vomits some of it out in his posts how everybody else are
>blinded and possessed by his demons.
 
I assume that, like just about everything else, it's all about the money.
 
All religions/cults are, ultimately, about the money.
 
I'm assuming that Rick is hoping that at least one sucker will contact him
as a result of his postings, and get ensnared in his web. In fact, one
should assume that he's already caught some fish, given that he's been at
this for quite some time now.
 
--
The difference between communism and capitalism?
In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around.
 
- Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (1960) -
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 03 09:43AM +0200

On 03/10/18 09:10, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> blinded and possessed by his demons.
 
> I assume that, like just about everything else, it's all about the money.
 
> All religions/cults are, ultimately, about the money.
 
Some are about sex, others are about other kinds of power (such as the
feeling of controlling people, or being worshipped and obeyed by people)
- but most are about money.
 
However, that's for the people at the top. They rely on masses lower
down who /think/ its about something else - being better people, talking
to god, storing brownie points in heaven for a better life after this
one. That's how the folks at the top convince the folks lower down to
part with their money.
 
And I think in many cases, the folks at the top - the leaders or
inventors of the cult - often start off with good intentions, and really
believing what they are selling. Corruption from within or from outside
seems inevitable, but it doesn't necessarily start that way.
 
> as a result of his postings, and get ensnared in his web. In fact, one
> should assume that he's already caught some fish, given that he's been at
> this for quite some time now.
 
I don't think Rick is after money. He is after brownie points with his
god. He really does believe we are all going to burn for eternity - and
that means /everyone/, including other Christians that don't follow his
exact cult rules. And he believes the only way to keep on the good side
of his god is to keep spreading his "message". He is completely blind
to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of what he writes - he really does
think it is true. You can be sure that anyone after money would have
moved on, looking for more fertile ground elsewhere - the economics of
posting here don't make sense.
 
As for how many followers he has, have a look at his CAlive google group
and see how many people post there.
boltar@cylonhq.com: Oct 03 08:31AM

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:49:42 GMT
 
>Don't be an idiot. Don't put the onus on others for your trespasses. Don't
>trespass on this group and everything will be fine and everyone (except you)
>will be happy.
 
For some reason aioe.org news servers consider your name a Bad Word and I
have to remove the dot after the C to post anything with it in. Perhaps
you have form with them. Alternatively they could have just screwed up their
regex matchers but the former would be so much more interesting :)
queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg): Oct 03 10:23AM


> As for how many followers he has, have a look at his CAlive google group
> and see how many people post there.
 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage
 
- CAlive to add #append and #prepend to add content to prior #define
tokens (1)
- Jesus will forgive you, and give you eternal life (2)
- CAlive to add end keyword and code block for polite, common termination
of functions (1)
- Why study the Bible? What can we learn? (1)
- CAlive to introduce wind {..} and unwind {..} blocks and unwind keyword
(1)
- The life of extravagant transformation in and by Jesus Christ (1)
- CAlive to introduce type-ii and type-i functions, as well as i {..}
blocks (1)
- How much is your life worth? (1)
- CAlive to allow directional pointers (ptr->member and member<-ptr) (3)
- Have an Encounter with Jesus today (1)
- CAlive to introduce bury keyword, and flag unused return parameters (1)
- Eternal life (1)
- CAlive to add full CAlive language support for pre-processing (1)
- The Problem with Christianity (1)
 
Wow.
 
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 03 04:48AM -0700

Sin is the enemy of man, not man himself. I am not against any of you.
I am teaching you the way things are. We are born into sin in this world
(do you have to teach a 2yr old to lie?). That sin has caused the condemn-
ation of our soul, and the death of our spirit. The only input we have
is our flesh.
 
Because we are spiritually dead, the evil spirits which exist are able to
influence our thinking, feelings, emotions, and they lead us to do sinful
things. They can only lead us. They can't make us do things, but when
we acquiesce to their prompting, they then gain a legal license to enter
in to our bodies and then they can make us do things.
 
They have done this to leaders to change the course of history, altering
public policy, establishing new goals which effectively enslave or wrap
each of us in a world with an increasing propensity toward sin.
 
Our music industry, television, news media, movies, radio, everything has
been compromised by the enemy, the purpose of which is to give those evil
spirits bodies by which to interact with world (as their own physical bodies
are locked up in chains awaiting the day of judgment), and to keep each
of us locked up in sin, unforgiven, and just as damned to Hell as they are.
 
I teach you these things because I know the way out. It is to have your
sin forgiven by Jesus.
 
Once He takes your sin away, your soul is no longer under condemnation,
and your spirit comes alive. This new spirit life "switches the light on"
so you can see the evil spirits at work in your life. This enables you
to turn from them and follow God's guidance, which is also spirit.
 
It's why Christians change so much once they're saved. The voices givinf
them input do a 180. But the enemy doesn't give up. He regroups and comes
back looking to find a way back in, to diminish /YOUR/ impact on this world,
to hobble you under the enemy's deception and weight of oppression, and
this happens to many Christians, myself included.
 
The way out of that oppression is to obey and pursue God as per His guidance
in scripture, to pray, fast, read and study the Bible, to meet together
for fellowship and accountability, to keep your focus on the spirit, not
the flesh.
 
The goal is to be productive for the Lord, to be His servant, to reach others,
to yield a bountiful harvest, which is new, eternal life in others. The
other goal is to keep reign over yourself, which requires focus, discipline,
purpose.
 
God's ways lead to eternal life through Jesus Christ. It's not about money,
or power, or anything else. It's about forgiveness of sin, and eternal
life. It's about me and you coming to know Jesus. Period.
 
The enemy tries to soil that goal by painting it as something else. That
enemy has no power over the truth, and the true calling of God remains despite
that enemy's attempts as soiling the goal with lies.
 
Jesus is calling you to Him. I simply teach you that. It is about Him
and you, and not about me.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 03 10:46AM -0700

On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 10:43:33 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> think it is true. You can be sure that anyone after money would have
> moved on, looking for more fertile ground elsewhere - the economics of
> posting here don't make sense.
 
I think he believes that he gets more brownie points when people are
angry at him. Therefore he tries to troll us. Typical technique of his
is being as boring, annoying, perturbing and groundlessly accusing as
possible. He does never answer any questions, he ignores what was
posted and deliberately misunderstands the little he reads. Sometimes
he posts outright nonsense directly or indirectly from parody sites and
when pointed at it then it is not his fault but of some other similar
idiot from YouTube. Why such people never fear that they misinterpret,
misrepresent and disservice their god? Brownie point from Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNKMXkU09Iw
Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Oct 03 10:36AM -0700

Hello..
 
 
My C++ synchronization objects library was updated..
 
My Scalable RWLocks using scalable counting networks were enhanced..
 
I think my C++ synchronization objects library is much more stable and fast.
 
You can read about it and download the new Windows and Linux versions from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/c-synchronization-objects-library
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Oct 03 12:55PM -0400

<https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2018/09/25/books-on-c17/?utm_source=vs_developer_news&utm_medium=referral>
 
Some of you might be interested in this blog about new books on C++ 17:
 
Good luck.
bitrex <user@example.net>: Oct 03 10:41AM -0400

On 09/29/2018 06:54 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> We've been duped by an enemy working globally against mankind.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdpfPmeMIA
 
> 25 minutes to challenge your thinking.
 
Isaiah 28
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 03 10:46AM -0400

On 10/3/2018 10:41 AM, bitrex wrote:
 
>>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdpfPmeMIA
 
>> 25 minutes to challenge your thinking.
 
> Isaiah 28
 
Absolutely.
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+28&version=KJV
 
It is with great prayer I seek to escape the coming judgment,
through having asked forgiveness of sin, and then to be obedient
to the will of the Father:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=KJV
 
I feel like I fail a lot. I always feel like I could be doing
more.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
bitrex <user@example.net>: Oct 03 11:09AM -0400

On 10/03/2018 10:46 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=KJV
 
> I feel like I fail a lot.  I always feel like I could be doing
> more.
 
If Christ said the yoke is easy and the burden, light, then it must be
so. If it doesn't feel light then only other explanation is it is loaded
down with excess baggage Christ didn't put there.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 03 12:50PM -0400

On 10/3/2018 11:09 AM, bitrex wrote:
 
>> I feel like I fail a lot.  I always feel like I could be doing
>> more.
 
> If Christ said the yoke is easy and the burden, light,
 
It's not quite that simple.
 
He said His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. That yoke
and burden is to follow Him in all we do, by conscious choice,
which is easy, and is not hard to do in and of itself.
 
It's the following Him that is easy. It's the backlash you
get from the people in the world that is heavy. Jesus also
said:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A33&version=KJV
 
33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye
might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation
[great trouble]: but be of good cheer; I have overcome
the world.
 
Everyone who stands tall for God is like a bright light in the
room. For all the darkness seeking to be in this world, that
right light is a constant reminder of their dark fate. As such,
that darkness rises up to attack that light and try and snuff
it out.
 
> then it must be so. If
> it doesn't feel light then only other explanation is it is loaded down with
> excess baggage Christ didn't put there.
 
I know of no saint of God in active outreach ministry who is
not consistently attacked, burdened by those attacks, feeling
the weight of their ministry, from those around them who are
unsaved. They receive strength and are emboldened by communing
with other saints, which is why we're told not to forsake the
assembly of the brethren, but it is a burden consistently.
 
It's not a smooth life to serve God. You're up against the
very enemy of this world who desires to see us destroyed. God
lets us be attacked at times, and then gives us the strength
to stand up against it ... if we choose Him, and choose to do
so. In this way, He is building a witness for us.
 
An individual proclaiming he/she is able to do something,
their claim has no validity unless there is a witness to go
along with it. Jesus is giving us that witness for all of
eternity by allowing us to go through trials and tribulations
here.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 03 09:41AM -0700


> OK, well if one of three counts as having special status, then
> another related one is [status when an object of that type has not
> been initialized. ...]
 
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there is only one, just that
there is at least one. Also I didn't mean it as a gotcha, just
a property you may have forgotten or overlooked.
 
> There may be other special cases of that kind. But these all
> relate to the fact that these types may be used for low level byte
> access in C++ rather than that they are "characters".
 
The property I mentioned relates more to the type 'char' being a
character type than it does to the type 'char' being an integer
type: it's a carryover from C, where all character types, and
only character types, have the property in question. Or one might
say it relates to the type(s) being the smallest object type(s)
(other than bitfields), which also relates to characters. In any
case my comment was not about "characterness" or "integerness",
only that the type 'char' does have a status beyond that of
integer types generally. The type 'char' also has a status beyond
that of *character* types generally (even considering just narrow
character types). What matters is the distinction in status, not
what labels might be used to describe it.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 03 09:30AM +0200

On 02/10/18 22:11, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> the behaviour of undefined behaviour is never a good idea.
 
> I am artificially creating the race condition using 100% legitimate
> operations;
 
And your result is as undefined as if you wrote "int xs[10]; return
x[100];".
 
Race conditions are undefined behaviour. The compiler (and library)
don't guarantee anything here - the don't even guarantee that the
operations are atomic.
 
> compiler better not shi% it up. Sorry for the brief response, but I am
> working on a fractal right now. Will have some more time later on today
> David. Thanks.
 
It doesn't matter what you think the compiler /should/ do. The
/standards/ say what the compiler should do. If you stick to /your/
side of the bargain and avoid undefined behaviour, the compiler will
stick to its side and generate code matching the specifications in the
standards.
 
You are breaking your side of that deal. Why do you expect the compiler
has any responsibility to help you in that?
 
In /practice/, I think it is highly unlikely that the compiler can tell
that you are writing jumbled crap instead of valid C code in this case.
And I think it is highly unlikely that a compiler will have
optimisations that could take effect here - simply because what you are
writing is so clearly bad that compiler writers have no interest in
finding ways to make it fast.
 
 
But you need to understand that the sole reason you get your atomic
loads and stores here is that the compiler is not omnipotent. And some
static analysis tools /will/ be able to see that there are data races
here - that means that future compilers might have the same level of
analysis, see that your code breaks all the rules, and simply remove the
broken code. Or maybe - if they are nice - give you a warning about it
and /then/ remove it.
 
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Oct 03 12:51PM +0100

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 09:30:32 +0200
 
> Race conditions are undefined behaviour. The compiler (and library)
> don't guarantee anything here - the don't even guarantee that the
> operations are atomic.
 
Where are you saying that the undefined behaviour comes from? The
concurrent operations are on a shared variable of type
std::atomic<unsigned int>. The fact that the stores and loads are with
relaxed memory ordering does not create a "data race" (and so
undefined behaviour) within the meaning of the standard.
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 03 08:15AM -0400

On 10/03/2018 03:30 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/10/18 22:11, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/2/2018 4:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
>> operations;
 
> And your result is as undefined as if you wrote "int xs[10]; return
> x[100];".
 
Could you point to a single, specific, and preferably simple example of
code that he wrote which has undefined behavior, and the specific clause
from the standard that says that this code has undefined behavior?
Preferably with an explanation of how that clause applies. I'm not
disagreeing with you, but multi-threaded code is not something I have a
lot of experience with, and I haven't had time to fully digest the
descriptions of the newly added features of C that support such code. He
is disagreeing with you, and I'd like to have enough information to
decide which of you I agree with.
 
> Race conditions are undefined behaviour. The compiler (and library)
> don't guarantee anything here - the don't even guarantee that the
> operations are atomic.
 
True, per 5.1.2.4p25; but I gather that the point of disagreement here
is whether the conditions have been met for that clause to apply -
specifically, the requirement that "... at least one of which is not
atomic, ...". Could you explain what's wrong with the reasons that have
been given for believing that it doesn't apply?
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 03 02:27PM +0200

On 03/10/18 13:51, Chris Vine wrote:
> std::atomic<unsigned int>. The fact that the stores and loads are with
> relaxed memory ordering does not create a "data race" (and so
> undefined behaviour) within the meaning of the standard.
 
To be entirely honest here, I haven't studied your code in detail - I
have taken you at your word that you are generating race conditions in
your "racer" function. And race conditions are clearly undefined behaviour.
 
If it turns out that you are wrong in the characteristic of your code,
so that there are in fact no race conditions, then the behaviour is
merely unspecified, not undefined. In that case, the compiler can't
remove the code - but you still don't have anything worthy of using as a
random number generator because you have no way of knowing how it might
be implemented in practice.
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Oct 03 01:38PM +0100

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:27:11 +0200
> remove the code - but you still don't have anything worthy of using as a
> random number generator because you have no way of knowing how it might
> be implemented in practice.
 
Wrong Chris. Here is an extract from my response to Chris T about his
choice of name for 'racer' and what the standard says about it.
 
"So far as I understand your code, the "racer" function is inaptly
named in the C++ sense because it modifies an atomic variable with
relaxed memory ordering. This is indeed unsynchronized with no
"happens before" relationships, and the outcome will be indeterminate;
but in C++ standardeze that does not of itself generate a "data race"
or undefined behaviour.
 
In C++ standardeze:
 
'The execution of a program contains a data race if it contains two
potentially concurrent conflicting actions, at least one of which
is not atomic, and neither happens before the other, except for the
special case for signal handlers described below. Any such data
race results in undefined behavior.'
 
All your concurrent actions appear to be on a single atomic variable
and are therefore atomic. So although the second leg of the test for
a "data race" is met, the first leg is not. Note that this is
different from what most people would call a "data race" in the
programmatic sense: most people would say that any program which does
not establish the correct "happens before" relationships is "racy".
But that does not of itself give rise to undefined behaviour."
 
There is a legitimate criticism of his implementation, which is that
although it appears guaranteed to produce a series of 0 or 1 and not
some other number, nor a hardward trap nor segfault, I think it could
probably in theory at least produce all 0 or all 1. (I would need to
study his code more to see if that could happen.)
 
Its random nature also depends on relaxed memory ordering in fact being
provided. In practice for unsigned int that will be the case on any
reasonable platform, but if the hardware had to have a special
instruction in order to make the assignment to unsigned int atomic at
the hardware level that would probably have the side effect of
introducing ordering. Asking for relaxed memory ordering doesn't mean
you will get it. It is an indication to the compiler that ordering
isn't required.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 03 02:52PM +0200

On 03/10/18 14:38, Chris Vine wrote:
>> random number generator because you have no way of knowing how it might
>> be implemented in practice.
 
> Wrong Chris.
 
Sorry - I didn't notice.
 
> "happens before" relationships, and the outcome will be indeterminate;
> but in C++ standardeze that does not of itself generate a "data race"
> or undefined behaviour.
 
In that case, I agree with you.
 
> some other number, nor a hardward trap nor segfault, I think it could
> probably in theory at least produce all 0 or all 1. (I would need to
> study his code more to see if that could happen.)
 
My guess - without having studied the code either - is that on a system
with a single cpu core and "run to completion" multi-threading, you'd
get very poor randomisation.
 
> introducing ordering. Asking for relaxed memory ordering doesn't mean
> you will get it. It is an indication to the compiler that ordering
> isn't required.
 
Yes. The implementation can always bump up the strength of the ordering
- it just can't reduce the strength.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 03 02:57PM +0200

On 03/10/18 14:15, James Kuyper wrote:
 
> Could you point to a single, specific, and preferably simple example of
> code that he wrote which has undefined behavior, and the specific clause
> from the standard that says that this code has undefined behavior?
 
After reading Chris Vine's posts and having another quick look, it
appears that his code does not in fact have race conditions, even though
that is how Chris Thomasson described his own code. If it /does/ have
data races that I missed, these are undefined behaviour (5.1.2.4p25 in
C11, and 1.10p21 in C++14 I think). But these define data races as
mixing atomic and non-atomic accesses, whereas the code uses only atomic
accesses.
 
(It may be that there is other undefined behaviour in the code - I
haven't looked in detail. My argument was based on the OP's statement
"my code uses race conditions to give random numbers", rather than a
good look at the code.)
 
> specifically, the requirement that "... at least one of which is not
> atomic, ...". Could you explain what's wrong with the reasons that have
> been given for believing that it doesn't apply?
 
As I say, it looks like the code does not contain data races after all.
queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg): Oct 03 10:27AM


> Hello members am Ricky I would like to get advice how to make a report
> using excel or word I.e output from my file in c. Am using codes blocks
> IDE thanks.it is a small database
 
When I need to output data to be imported into Excel, I just produce a
tab-separated text output and paste it there. Works.
 
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 03 11:26PM +1300

On 03/10/18 04:57, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> scripture. There are no discrepancies when you look at things
> from that point of view, and they answer many questions which
> modern science cannot yet answer.
 
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
pepstein5@gmail.com: Oct 03 12:26AM -0700

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:10:48 PM UTC+1, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
 
> You're welcome.
 
> Cheers!,
 
> - Alf
 
Good points. Thanks to everyone.
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)