Saturday, December 1, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 3 topics

woodbrian77@gmail.com: Nov 30 07:42PM -0800

> "Checking the prerequisites. It can take several minutes.
> Please wait...". That was over an hour ago and nothing has
> happened.
 
The problem was that I wasn't using sudo when running
the install program. It hit me a few minutes ago that
that might be the problem. An error message would have
helped.
 
 
> On-line code generation minimizes the software that you have
> to download/build/maintain, thereby avoiding most of these
> install problems.
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Dec 01 12:20PM -0800

> the install program. It hit me a few minutes ago that
> that might be the problem. An error message would have
> helped.
 
Intel has a bunch of analysis and debugging related tools
that sound great. I wasn't impressed, though with their
C++ compiler. It produced chubby (text) segments compared
to gcc or even clang.
 

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 01 04:32PM +0100

>> idiotic.
 
> When your compile cycle takes 35 minutes using Icecream and a pool
> of a couple of hundred CPUs you care.
 
I'll bet my right hand that parsing the C++-source and generating
code takes magnitudes more CPU-time than parsing and branching upon
the include-guards.
wyniijj@gmail.com: Dec 01 01:34AM -0800

Öö Tiib於 2018年11月30日星期五 UTC+8下午10時50分28秒寫道:
> are usually checking if the program (or functions in it) give expected
> outputs to test inputs, and not how C++ features work on any kind
> of code.
 
The major part are library codes, test codes are made to assure the API
can be more correctly used in as many scenarios as possible.
Take Qt library (pre-c++11) for analogy, I had a QString-like class.
To upgrade to c++11, I should evaluate the possibility of adding move
ctor/assignment..members to QString. Whether adding or not in the final,
I should examine by writting test cases that explicitly use rref things
or implicitly interpreted to use.
All classes/functions... have to go through such similar examination
procedure against each new feature.
Luckily, in this illustrated case I know I can safely ignore rref things.
Another analogy would be like Qt's foreach. Since I don't use foreach,
just can imagine the labor (and the mental struggle) I would take to
upgrade to newer c++ version.
 
> > reason hesitate.
 
> In my programs inheritance is rare,the few inheritance trees are flat
> and multiple inheritance is extra rare.
 
Multiple inheritance is rare is because of years of experiences and
evolution (something like exception specification). The bottom thing is
class inheritance is not that omni-capable as it used to be believed.
 
> these few classes with multiple inheritance behave as expected
> in contexts where these are used. I do not need tests how multiple
> inheritance works in general and in whatever context.
 
'Tests are only written..." is the problem of c++ from at least c++11
and latter years. Some form of program writting invented is
just because people focus in the beauty, efficiency or whatever fancy
reasons too much to underestimate the shadow side (tests not done enough).
At least I know 'size bloat' is not a good sign (you might find many
rarely used things appear in compiled files or in executibles instead).
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: