- Undefined Behaviour - 2 Updates
- Rick C. Hodgin Parody Posts - 1 Update
- Leigh Johnston Impersonation Posts - 16 Updates
- int8_t and char - 3 Updates
- Problem with putting temporary variables in constructors - 3 Updates
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 08 07:50AM -0700 > to a program that exceeds some (stated or otherwise) limit however > the behavior is still defined. My position is that it is undefined > in that situation. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree about it? Before I agree or disagree I'd like to be sure we each understand the other's position. Below are six C++ programs. For which of these programs does the C++ standard impose requirements for what status is returned? Assume size_t is at least 32 bits and that all programs are accepted without complaint by the compiler. int main(){ char a[ 10]; return 0; } int main(){ char a[ 1000]; return 0; } int main(){ char a[ 100000]; return 0; } int main(){ char a[ 10000000]; return 0; } int main(){ char a[1000000000]; return 0; } int main(){ int x=1, y = 0; return x/y; } |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 08 10:59AM -0700 On Monday, 8 October 2018 17:50:16 UTC+3, Tim Rentsch wrote: > int main(){ char a[ 10000000]; return 0; } > int main(){ char a[1000000000]; return 0; } > int main(){ int x=1, y = 0; return x/y; } Last function contains undefined behavior by [expr.mul] "If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined." Rest of the functions may compile and run flawlessly. There are non-normative guidelines in Annex B [implimits] that every implementation shall document its resource limitations. The minimum recommended limit for object size is listed there to be 256 kilobytes. In your example two main functions exceed that limit. Standard does not impose any requirements to programs that exceeds resource limitations of implementation so for implementation that follows that recommendation these two functions have also undefined behavior. However implementation is free to define that limit to be million kilobytes (then all are defined) or 64 kilobytes (then there are only two mains with defined behavior). That is my opinion of course, your seems to be that these all are defined no matter what. IIRC under MSDOS the whole memory for *.com files was 64 kilobytes, stack was set to end (something like 0xFFFE) and worked down from there. When it hit static objects or code then it did blow up. |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Oct 08 10:45AM -0700 Hi, I have agreed with GigaNews that the Hodgin parody posts will cease however I did remind GigaNews that Hodgin would himself also be in violation of their terms if he was a custom of theirs. /Leigh |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:34PM -0700 On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 5:12:21 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > If you'd like to send an email to abuse@giganews.com to get Leigh > Johnston to stop posting parody posts, you can use this information: Great! And do you happen to have any suggestions about how to get Rick Hodgin to stop spamming usenet? Daniel |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 08 08:51AM +0200 On 07/10/18 23:12, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > If you'd like to send an email to abuse@giganews.com to get Leigh > Johnston to stop posting parody posts, you can use this information: I think it is safe to say that Leigh's so-called "parody" posts are flagrant abuse and everyone wants them to stop. It is /equally/ safe to say that all your religious posts which provoke them, and your "I did not write the post" replies, are also abuse and everyone wants them to stop. How about both of you stop this petty squabble, and we get back to talking about something at least close to C++ ? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 04:46AM -0700 On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:51:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > [snip] You may not care about defending your name, David, but I do care about defending mine. I correct the false posts so people happening by these false posts WITH MY NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS ASCRIBED TO THEM, will not think they come from me. If Leigh wants to post under "Rick C. Hoggins" or some other name, I'll let all of them slide. But so long as he uses my name and email, I will defend my name. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Oct 08 02:19PM +0200 Am 08.10.18 um 13:46 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:> You may not care about defending your name, David, but I do c> about defending mine. I correct the false posts so people happening> by these false posts WITH MY NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS ASCRIBED TO THEM,> will not think they come from me. ...and as long as you react, he will continue to post. Don't you see it is a circulus vitiosus? Christian |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Oct 08 12:25PM In article <ppfi17$7at$1@dont-email.me>, Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote: Rick C. Hodgin: >> You may not care about >>defending your name, David, but I do c> about defending mine. I correct >>the false posts so people happening> by these false posts WITH MY NAME ... Christian: >...and as long as you react, he will continue to post. >Don't you see it is a circulus vitiosus? All of Usenet is a vicious circle these days. -- This is the GOP's problem. When you're at the beginning of the year and you've got nine Democrats running for the nomination, maybe one or two of them are Dennis Kucinich. When you have nine Republicans, seven or eight of them are Michelle Bachmann. |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Oct 08 12:29PM In article <528ee873-3eeb-4f0a-abe2-affbeb42c240@googlegroups.com>, >about defending mine. I correct the false posts so people happening >by these false posts WITH MY NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS ASCRIBED TO THEM, >will not think they come from me. The way I know that I am reading a so-called "Impersonation Post" is because I am left feeling that this RCH (Red C**t Hair) persaonna is not completely insane [*]. Now, we wouldn't want that, would we? [*] Then I read the stupid "It's not me" followup, and am reminded that, yes, The Real Rick *is* completely insane. P.S. The conclusion, if you are too thick to see it, is that Leigh's posts improve your reputation. Your own posts undo his good work. -- I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou - |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 08:29AM -0400 On 10/8/2018 8:19 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > ...and as long as you react, he will continue to post. Don't you see it is a > circulus vitiosus? > Christian Yes. But I have no choice, Christian. I don't want people doing a search for my name and happening across this content Leigh posts, concluding by mistake that it came from me. I have tried to get it to stop repeatedly (more than 20 times) by going to GigaNews. They have ignored all of my requests. If more of you send email to their abuse department, maybe then it will actually be finally addressed as the complaints come from someone who is not me. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 08:44AM -0400 On 10/8/2018 8:29 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > [snip] I know you think I'm crazy, Kenny. But someday, you will know otherwise. It will either be very good for you, or very bad for you. My hope for you is that it will be very good for you. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Oct 08 01:05PM In article <ppfjel$gro$1@dont-email.me>, >I know you think I'm crazy, Kenny. But someday, you will know >otherwise. It will either be very good for you, or very bad >for you. My hope for you is that it will be very good for you. I think you'd do a lot better to embrace your craziness! Let it out! Admit it! Enjoy it! -- b w r w g y b r y b |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 09:29AM -0400 On 10/8/2018 9:05 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: >> otherwise. It will either be very good for you, or very bad >> for you. My hope for you is that it will be very good for you. > I think you'd do a lot better to embrace your craziness! What you call craziness is the new spirit born again nature. And I do embrace it. It's what enables me to receive these hateful demeaning posts from you and not respond in kind. > Let it out! Admit it! Enjoy it! Go and talk to born again people at your local Bible believing churches, Kenny. Get input from them on the change that took place from before they were saved to after, and how they felt that huge weight come off when their sin was forgiven. It's not a joke. But it does require the new spirit nature to be able to receive and understand. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Oct 08 01:59PM In article <ppfm3s$1fg$1@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: ... >What you call craziness is the new spirit born again nature. >And I do embrace it. It's what enables me to receive these >hateful demeaning posts from you and not respond in kind. Great!! We are in agreement! We only differ in terminology, which is nothing. You call it "the new spirit"; I (and just about everyone else) calls it crazy or insanity. But, hey, those are just words. I am so happy to hear that you are embracing the real you. -- Faith doesn't give you the answers; it just stops you from asking the questions. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 10:10AM -0400 On 10/8/2018 9:59 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > [snip] Why are you so against God, Kenny? Is it because of Christians? Or is it because of Jesus Himself? If it's because of Christians, then don't let our weaknesses and mistakes prevent you from seeking Jesus out Himself. He came to overcome our weaknesses and mistakes. We all need Him to overcome our folly, but He doesn't call us to be embracing folly, embracing falseness, embracing the things of this world. He calls us to be holy, loving, caring, teaching. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 08 05:45PM +0200 On 08/10/18 13:46, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > If Leigh wants to post under "Rick C. Hoggins" or some other name, > I'll let all of them slide. But so long as he uses my name and > email, I will defend my name. You misunderstand me completely. I think you are right to what to defend your name against such abuse. But you are wrong to do it by posting more religious nonsense in response to his posts. If you think any of us mistake his posts for yours, you gravely insult our intelligence. If you think your posts will stop him or reduce his mocking, you are living in a fantasy world. If you think any of us want to read more of your meaningless monologues, you are again badly mistaken. Send abuse complaints to his Usenet provider - that is an entirely reasonable response and is certainly your right when he makes posts claiming to be from you. Don't expect a lot of sympathy from others in this group, however. Two wrongs do not make a right - neither Leigh nor you are in any position to take the moral high ground. You are /both/ at fault for flagrant abuse of this group. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 11:55AM -0400 On 10/8/2018 11:45 AM, David Brown wrote: > ...If you think any of us mistake > his posts for yours, you gravely insult our intelligence. My concern is for posterity and Google searches unrelated to the regulars on this group. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Oct 08 09:58AM -0700 On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:45:18 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > wrongs do not make a right - neither Leigh nor you are in any position > to take the moral high ground. You are /both/ at fault for flagrant > abuse of this group. If you killfile Rick you won't see my parody posts either; unfortunately this form of parody is the only weapon I have to stop the likes of Rick spamming this technical newsgroup with his religious garbage. The quality of the parody is quite high IMO: last night's bombing run was simply quotes of the great atheist Christopher Hitchens (modulo the final "Meta" post). /Leigh |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Oct 08 05:32PM On Mon, 2018-10-08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > If more of you send email to their abuse department, maybe then > it will actually be finally addressed as the complaints come > from someone who is not me. Done! Although if they ignore reports by the immediate victim, they might ignore mine, too. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 08 10:43AM -0400 On 10/07/2018 07:22 PM, Chris Vine wrote: > is a null pointer constant, so implication plays no role: "A null > pointer constant is an integer literal with value zero or a prvalue of > type std::nullptr_t". My point was that when the standard provides a definition for a term, the only thing that matters to the meaning of that term is the definition, not any of the implications you might derive from the ordinary English meaning of the words that make up the term. Here's the relevant definitions: "There may also be implementation-defined _extended signed integer types_." (3.9.1p2). "for each of the extended signed integer types there exists a corresponding _extended unsigned integer type_ with the same amount of storage and alignment requirements.... the extended signed integer types and _extended unsigned integer_ types are collectively called the extended integer types." (3.9.1p3) I've use underscores to bracket the phrase which were italicized, an ISO convention indicating that the sentences in which the italicized phrase occurs is considered to constitute the official definition of the term. If you pay any attention to the ordinary English meaning of "extended" to reach your conclusion, you're ignoring ISO's conventions that allow standards to define a meaning for a phrase that need not be particularly closely related to the ordinary English interpretation of that phrase. Can you derive the requirement that an extended integer type must be implemented differently from any standard integer type, without referencing implications you've derived from the word "extended"? |
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 08 08:08AM -0700 > To me, "int8_t" says "8-bit signed integer". The problem is that to other people it says something different, and none of your arguments or biases is ever going to change that. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Oct 08 05:10PM +0100 On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:43:55 -0400 > Can you derive the requirement that an extended integer type must be > implemented differently from any standard integer type, without > referencing implications you've derived from the word "extended"? I don't think this one works much better than your last. The words "there may also be implementation-defined extended signed integer types" do not tell you what extended signed integer types are or how they differ from the standard signed integer types (if they did there would be no argument), just that they may exist. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 08 03:51PM +1300 On 08/10/18 08:28, Paul wrote: > { > // Some code > } What errors do you see? -- Ian. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Oct 08 10:49AM +0200 On 07.10.2018 21:28, Paul wrote: > the temporary variable RandomGen(Constants::testRandomNums, Constants::testProbabilities) as a parameter for the TestNextNum > constructor. > Is this a problem? Could be, if you're binding a member reference to the argument. Clever idea to not show the code. > Thank you very much for your help, Oh, you're welcome. :) Cheers!, - Alf |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 08 09:06AM > the temporary variable RandomGen(Constants::testRandomNums, Constants::testProbabilities) as a parameter for the TestNextNum > constructor. > Is this a problem? It depends on what exactly you are doing with that reference. If you are, for example, just using the object pointed by that reference within that constructor implementation and nothing else, then there's no problem (because the object will exist for as long as the constructor is being executed). If you are initializing a member variable of TestNextNum (by calling its copy or move constructor, or possibly the copy or move assignment operator) with that parameter, there's also no problem (because the parameter itself won't be used anymore after that). If you are assuming the lifetime of the object pointed to by the rerence is longer than the duration of the constructor, then you would have a problem. |
| 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