- Human - 1 Update
- Recursive spinlock - 6 Updates
- macOS is UNIX - 1 Update
- C passes Java and becomes number 1 programming language - 7 Updates
- invalid initialization of non-const reference of type - 1 Update
- Custom allocator not working with gcc - 1 Update
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 10 11:49PM +0100 are we human? or are we dancer? -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne 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." |
| Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se>: May 10 04:44PM +0200 On 2020-05-10 at 13:49, Bonita Montero wrote: > by spinning is high the lock is only held a very short time. If it is > held a very short time, the likehood of a collision of two threads is > low. So spinning doesn't make sense. It could also be that the lock is held for a longer time, but not very often. Then it makes sense to make a quick check before doing a more expensive OS call. Bo Persson |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: May 10 05:04PM +0200 >> low. So spinning doesn't make sense. > It could also be that the lock is held for a longer time, but not very > often. Then spinning succeeds only when it is begun shortly before the other thread releases the mutex, and that's very unlikely. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: May 10 01:32PM -0700 On 5/10/2020 5:07 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Mutexes with spinning are just a stupid idea and are not thought > to the end in the sense i told. An adaptive mutex is a good idea. Any kernel calls that can be avoided is great! Btw, you should tell the Linux guys that they made a big mistake. ;^) |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: May 10 01:32PM -0700 On 5/10/2020 5:55 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> to such ... just *stupid* and *period*. And that for cascade of posts. >> Yawn. > I told you why. Try to argue against that. LOL! |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: May 10 01:36PM -0700 On 5/10/2020 1:32 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > An adaptive mutex is a good idea. Any kernel calls that can be avoided > is great! Btw, you should tell the Linux guys that they made a big > mistake. ;^) Iirc, they were trying to avoid some futex calls in userspace. Funny thing about futex... It seems that Microsoft has came up with something kind of like them: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/synchapi/nf-synchapi-waitonaddress I have used futexs, but never WaitOnAddress. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 10 02:48PM -0700 On Sunday, 10 May 2020 15:55:09 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > > to such ... just *stupid* and *period*. And that for cascade of posts. > > Yawn. > I told you why. Try to argue against that. You said something like that if lock is needed very frequently for very short time then there is very low likelihood of collision. It does not make sense at all and even looks rather stupid thing to say on its own. So it is your usual miss shot from the hip without anything to back it up? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 10 09:58PM +0100 Hi! Just trolled ##linux on Freenode IRC with the following assertion: I wonder why most people react angrily to the fact that macOS is UNIX whilst Linux is not UNIX. My assertion proved to be legit. :D /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne 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." |
| jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: May 10 06:58PM +0200 https://jaxenter.com/c-programming-may-2020-171598.html C increased by 2.82% to 17.07% C++ going down 1,97% to 6,13% |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: May 10 07:08PM +0200 Am 10.05.2020 um 18:58 schrieb jacobnavia: > https://jaxenter.com/c-programming-may-2020-171598.html > C increased by 2.82% to 17.07% > C++ going down 1,97% to 6,13% I think this is not because C is used so often in practice, but because C is a good language for learning for system -oriented programming. In practice, C is usually too uneconomical compared to other languages. This means that you need more time to do the same task and you make more mistakes. |
| jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: May 10 07:25PM +0200 Le 10/05/2020 à 19:08, Bonita Montero a écrit : > In practice, C is usually too uneconomical compared to other > languages. This means that you need more time to do the same > task and you make more mistakes. It would be interesting to reflect why C++ has gone down so much. Of course I have my ideas (just too difficult to learn) but it would be nice if we could make a common diagnostic. Without falling into personal wars of course. |
| Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se>: May 10 08:09PM +0200 On 2020-05-10 at 19:25, jacobnavia wrote: > It would be interesting to reflect why C++ has gone down so much. Of > course I have my ideas (just too difficult to learn) but it would be > nice if we could make a common diagnostic. Being difficult to learn could also result in *more* search engine activity. :-) Bo Persson |
| Daniel P <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 10 11:22AM -0700 On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 1:25:53 PM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > It would be interesting to reflect why C++ has gone down so much. The TIOBE index is a count of search engine results. So you're wondering about the reason for a 2 percent drop in search engine results? Maybe everyone has finally figured out the nuances of SFINAE and don't need to look that up anymore. But note that the index is volatile - very volatile. Daniel |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: May 10 06:51PM On Sun, 2020-05-10, Daniel P wrote: > results? Maybe everyone has finally figured out the nuances of > SFINAE and don't need to look that up anymore. > But note that the index is volatile - very volatile. All attempts to use the TIOBE index end up as a debate about the validity of the TIOBE index. The graph at https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ says more than the diff against April. And raises more questions. If one looks at the graph, from 2002 onwards, do the changes match /any/ known actual changes? I cannot easily see any. I cannot e.g. see any raised "interest" in C++ when the plans for C++11 became known. And I can't see why C was "unpopular" in 2016--2017. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: May 11 08:39AM +1200 On 11/05/2020 06:09, Bo Persson wrote: >> nice if we could make a common diagnostic. > Being difficult to learn could also result in *more* search engine > activity. :-) C++ programmers don't need to look stuff up on the Internet! -- Ian. |
| Heitber Andres Montilla Ramirez <montillaramirezh@gmail.com>: May 10 12:11PM -0700 thanks man!! |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: May 10 02:09PM > That is the point. Unless you think all longs should > have been specified as "signed long" just to make it > clearer? *What* is the point? I don't get it. What's with this obsession that beginners have with shorter code? > I don't code for Windows. If it doesn't compile on it I couldn't > care less nor do I have any way to test whether it does even if > I did care. If you don't care about standards, why were you talking about Posix earlier, then? Either way, if you want people *here* to help you, you should post code that actually compiles. Using non-standard code is a way to make sure that it won't compile and people will be less helpful. |
| 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