- Available C++ Libraries FAQ - 1 Update
- "Two new Keywords in C++20: consteval and constinit" - 1 Update
- More about our identity and about globalization and nationalism.. - 1 Update
- The convoy phenomenon - 1 Update
- Lock-Free Algorithms for Thread Safe Programming - 1 Update
- who's at fault, me or compiler? - 1 Update
| Nikki Locke <nikki@trumphurst.com>: Jul 14 10:23PM Available C++ Libraries FAQ URL: http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/ This is a searchable list of libraries and utilities (both free and commercial) available to C++ programmers. If you know of a library which is not in the list, why not fill in the form at http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/cppsub.php Maintainer: Nikki Locke - if you wish to contact me, please use the form on the website. |
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Jul 14 04:40PM -0500 "Two new Keywords in C++20: consteval and constinit" http://www.modernescpp.com/index.php/c-20-consteval-and-constinit Two more keywords that I will probably never use. Lynn |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 14 02:20PM -0700 Hello, More about our identity and about globalization and nationalism.. I have just extended this post and please read carefully all my new thoughts below.. I have just read the following very interesting webpage: What's Wrong with Liberalism? https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-liberalism And he says the following: "Populism marks a new phase in identity politics for the simple reason that people fear not only poverty, but also identity deprivation." and: "Our gains have been gains in efficiency, transparency and utility; the gains that Bentham hoped to see by the construction of his Panopticon, in which a single guard would be able to look straight into every prison cell. Our losses have been losses in purpose and meaning." But i think that he is too pessimistic, but i am positive, because we have to know about the purpose and meaning of life, and we have to know more about our identity, since i think that we have to seek like a "balance" between competition and collaboration, and about the meaning and purpose of life, i am talking about it in my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality, read it carefully here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 Also here is what i just said about our identity and about globalization and nationalism: More political philosophy about globalization and nationalism.. I am a white arab and i think i am more smart, so today i will talk about a very important subject about Globalization and nationalism, so i will invite you to look at the following video of Marine Le Pen of the far-right political party in France: Marine Le Pen explains why nationalism is important https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNpI9wKnE8Q As you notice that Marine Le Pen is saying in french that the fight today is between nationalism and globalization, since Marine Le Pen says that globalization is a treat to national identity and is a treat to national sovereignty, but i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly globalization, since i think that nationalism is too much competition and communism and socialism is too much collaboration , so i think the best way is to seek like a balance between collaboration and competition and when we look at globalization you will notice that we are collaborating with others by for example sharing Open Source softwares or Free softwares or PhD papers or knowledge on internet etc, and we are also competition by not collaborating with others, and with this new kind of model we are noticing that we are not just one identity like being french, but we are becoming multiple identities because this kind of new model is making a part of us that collaborate "universal", and this is why i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly this new kind of model of like seeking a balance between competition and collaboration , and i think that this new model is better because it is more efficient , because think this partly collaboration of this new model is good and more efficient for creativity, innovation, adaptability and speed of progress, i also think in capitalism the price of internet has gotten cheap and the price of computers has gotten cheap, so we are able today to access internet with a low price and benefit from "collaboration" and also sharing in internet, for example look at me, i have invented many scalable algorithms and i have decided to share some of them with the others, and it is of course collaboration , so look for example at my following inventions of scalable algorithms that i have shared with others, here they are: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.programming.threads/VaOo1WVACgs https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well Also i have decided to not share others of my scalable algorithms and it is competition, so i am seeking like a balance between collaboration and competition. About the Wind of Change.. I have just listened to the following video of the following beautiful song, look at it and listen to it: Scorpions - Wind Of Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ I think that the Wind of Change of today, is that we will very soon become much more efficient at avoiding "extremism" that also harms democracy and that harms morality and that causes violence inside the system, also the Wind of Change is also this exponential progress of our humanity that i think will quickly bring much more "satisfaction" to people, so i am positive about it. More political philosophy about beautifulness.. Please read below my logical proof about: Does beauty exist ? You will notice that in political philosophy and morality beauty is systemic and you will notice that i am explaining with my below logical proof that we are not too bad beauty, since i think we are also this "satisfaction" of being the effort, but i am showing below that we are not beautiful, but i think that our satisfaction is becoming greater and greater very "quickly" because of the "exponential" progress, so we have not to be pessimistic , because I think that to be able for us to be "beautiful" we have like to play it smartly like playing smartly at a game of chess, being beautiful needs an "effort" of being "smartness", this is why i am talking as i am talking because i am a strong believer that "dignity" too comes from smartness, since we can notice it quickly today by the very important fact that the beautiful of what we call exponential progress comes too from the following: Here is the 6 D's of Exponential Growth: Digitalization: Once something goes from physical to digital, it gains the ability to grow exponentially. Deception: Initial exponential growth is such small increases (.01 to .02) that it goes largely unnoticed. Disruption: Either a new market is created, or an old one is overturned. You either disrupt yourself, or you are disrupted. Demonetization: The major assets in the industry will become free. Free music, free reading, free communication. Dematerialization: Removal of the original product entirely, lumping alarm clocks, cameras, notebooks, and phones into one smartphone. Democratization: The costs drop so low that the technology becomes available to everyone. Read more here: The 6 Ds of Tech Disruption: A Guide to the Digital Economy https://singularityhub.com/2016/11/22/the-6-ds-of-tech-disruption-a-guide-to-the-digital-economy/?fbclid=IwAR1Jx4VJYvIce-BJXeVcajBYjwdKvvP_2y4WOd-2DEtGvXnOye0yzkQVdQU&utm_content=bufferb9891&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook-hub&utm_campaign=buffer Also capitalism switches from linear to exponential growth Read more here: http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/capitalism-switches-from-linear-to-exponential-growth And read the following: Exponential Progress: Can We Expect Mind-Blowing Changes In The Near Future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfM5HXpfnJQ But as you have just noticed that it is also related to my following thoughts: The future of innovation is in software I keep reading about how the future will be shaped by new cheaper fuel or amazing new medications. I believe that we are misreading the trends. Yes, we will have better medications and cheaper fuel in the future. However, I believe we are clearly in the mist of an information revolution. The future will be shaped by software, defined broadly. Specifically, I believe that: Tele-work, tele-play, tele-learning will soon represent 80% of our lives. There is much more room for innovation in software than in hardware. There are few ways to build a house, but many more ways to build a virtual house. Read more here: https://lemire.me/blog/2008/10/27/the-future-of-innovation-is-in-software/ And this related to my following thoughts: Dematerialising the future: what role can technology and consumers play? I have just posted before about Dematerialization Through Services, read it here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.usa/rVZUcghUe5E The above makes it clear that the evidence indicates that 'dematerialization through services' is not a valid policy for reducing carbon emissions. But Dematerialising is still important, read the following to notice it: Dematerialising the future: what role can technology and consumers play? https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/dematerialising-future-technology-consumers Also read my following thoughts to notice: About capitalism and the positive correlation between economic growth and environmental performance.. As an economy expands, resource usage becomes increasingly efficient and economies tend to move away from ecologically harmful behavior, while raising the standard of living of its participants. In fact, the 2018 Yale Environmental Performance Index shows a clear positive correlation between economic growth and environmental performance, read about it here: https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/2018/report/category/hlt So i think that we are on the right path, so as you are noticing that we have to dematerialize much more so that to avoid Environmental problems, but how will look like our near future that will be much more dematerialized ? look here in the following video to notice that one of our fellow techlead and software developer is doing it by much more dematerializing his life and he is happy by doing it: My minimalist apartment (as a millionaire) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUeqHhbQWFc More political philosophy about normal people.. I have just read the following important webpage of wikipedia: Normality (behavior) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_(behavior)#:~:text=Normal%20is%20also%20used%20to,changing%20societal%20standards%20and%20norms. So as you are noticing, i am logical in my writing below about normality, since the above webpage says that: "When looking at a specific behaviour, such as the frequency of lying, a researcher may use a Gaussian bell curve to plot all reactions, and a normal reaction would be within one standard deviation, or the most average 68.3%." And it is the tendency. More political philosophy about extremism and civilization.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart, since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, now today i will talk about extremism and civilization, and i will start it first by saying the following: I think that democracy is dependent much more on what we call "normal" people that are the majority, and is it in accordance with the essence of morality ? i think that the essence of morality is being reasonable that avoid to be extremism, and being reasonable is also being this normal people in democracy that know about there living conditions that make them more aware of the fact that we have to be a system that is not extremism and that knows how to help others such as the weakest members of the society so that to not be extremism, so in this regard i think democracy is in accordance with the essence of morality, i mean that it is the tendency in democracy, but notice that democracy needs to efficiently educate people so that to be efficient democracy. Now about civilization, i said the following about civilization: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a white arab, and i think i am more smart and i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms, but today i will speak about a very important thing and it is how to build a civilization, because i think that we have to be smart and notice that so that to build a civilization there is a very important requirement and it is that it must be an effort of building a civilization, so we have not to be like a coward that neglect to be this effort of building a civilization, so the effort of building a civilization is so important, so we have to be responsability, and also we have to know by how we have to be guided to this effort of building a civilization, so we have to be guided by the good taste that also permits to be efficiently selective to be able to be a greater quality or perfection and we have to be not violence that permits to be less individualistic and that permits to be more order and that permits to be more organized. And read the following about the good taste: Why we should stand up for good taste https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140605-what-makes-good-taste ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So as you are noticing that i am not saying above that civilization needs smartness, because you have to understand that since it is inherent to a civlization that it needs smartness, so i am not talking about it, i am just talking about the above important requirements to be a civilization, and you will notice that i am talking about the following requirement of being civilization: "that we have to be not violence that permits to be less individualistic and that permits to be more order and that permits to be more organized", so as you are noticing that, like in democracy and in morality, it is also extremism of violence that has to be avoided in a civilization and this is in accordance with the tendency of the essence of morality. Read the rest of my thoughts of my political philosophy to understand more: More political philosophy about morality and extremism.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart, and today i will talk about morality and extremism, so first i will invite you to read carefully all my following thoughts of my political philosophy about morality: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 So if you are smart you will notice that something is happening, it is that we have to be aware of my thoughts of political philosophy, since you will notice that essence of morality is that it has a tendency, like democracy, of avoiding extremism, but there is a requirement and it is that you have to be aware of my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality so that you understand it, the essence of morality is like being "reasonable", and if we look at how the dictionary defines reasonable, it says the following: "having sound judgment; fair and sensible" but it is also: "moderate" So by noticing that it is also being like "moderate", and i think that this moderate means that morality has to avoid to be "extremism" so that for it to still being called morality. So we have to be much more efficient at avoiding extremism because i think that it is the main problem today. More about the tracker.. Being a great philosopher is like being an efficient tracker, read here about the tracker: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tracker And i think that being smart at political philosophy is like being an efficient tracker that finds the rules or laws or the architectural ideas that permit to guide people or humanity to the right and efficient path. I think that i am more smart at doing it. I give you my predictions.. I am a white arab and i think i am more smart, so i will give you my predictions about politics: i think that we are noticing today that it is "extremism" that is the main problem and that is causing violence, so we are adapting quickly , even in USA, and we are able to measure morality more efficiently by knowing how to be reasonable so that to avoid extremism that is the |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 14 01:26PM -0700 Hello, I have just read the following IBM Research Report about Locks and convoying: The convoy phenomenon https://blog.acolyer.org/2019/07/01/the-convoy-phenomenon/ And i think that it is not so smart, because i am a white arab that is smart like a genius :), and i have invented a the Holy Grail of Locks that is more powerful than the above, it is a scalable Fast Mutex that is faster than the scalable MCS Lock, read about it in my following thoughts: I have invented a scalable algorithm that is a scalable fast Mutex that is remarkable and that is the Holy Grail of scalable Locks, it has the following characteristics, read my following thoughts to understand: About fair and unfair locking.. I have just read the following lead engineer at Amazon: Highly contended and fair locking in Java https://brooker.co.za/blog/2012/09/10/locking.html So as you are noticing that you can use unfair locking that can have starvation or fair locking that is slower than unfair locking. I think that Microsoft synchronization objects like the Windows critical section uses unfair locking, but they still can have starvation. But i think that this not the good way to do, because i am an inventor and i have invented a scalable Fast Mutex that is much more powerful , because with my scalable Fast Mutex you are capable to tune the "fairness" of the lock, and my Fast Mutex is capable of more than that, read about it on my following thoughts: More about research and software development.. I have just looked at the following new video: Why is coding so hard... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAAXwrgd1U8 I am understanding this video, but i have to explain my work: I am not like this techlead in the video above, because i am also an "inventor" that has invented many scalable algorithms and there implementions, i am also inventing effective abstractions, i give you an example: Read the following of the senior research scientist that is called Dave Dice: Preemption tolerant MCS locks https://blogs.oracle.com/dave/preemption-tolerant-mcs-locks As you are noticing he is trying to invent a new lock that is preemption tolerant, but his lock lacks some important characteristics, this is why i have just invented a new Fast Mutex that is adaptative and that is much much better and i think mine is the "best", and i think you will not find it anywhere, my new scalable Fast Mutex has the following characteristics: 1- Starvation-free 2- Tunable fairness 3- It keeps efficiently and very low its cache coherence traffic 4- Very good fast path performance 5- And it has a good preemption tolerance. 6- It is faster than scalable MCS lock 7- Not prone to convoying. And about composability of lock-based systems now: Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable: "Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming," reads one typically brazen claim, "building large programs by gluing together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible."9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence one need only point at the composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking. There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to user level with in-kernel locks held; the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable. Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving locking up to the client of the subsystem, the subsystem itself can be used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the implementation is sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a single AVL tree instance must be serialized. Read more here: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454462 And you have to look here at our DelphiConcurrent and FreepascalConcurrent: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/delphiconcurrent-and-freepascalconcurrent Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 14 12:37PM -0700 Hello, I have just read the following paper: Lock-Free Algorithms for Thread Safe Programming https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/32b9/466bca35b720c81f179b2e37af99403387a7.pdf And as you are noticing it is about Lock-free algorithms.. And i will soon provide you with a Lock-free Hashtable and a Lock-free Skiplist. More about my new invention of a lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm.. I have just invented a lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and i have just made it work correctly in only one day, so i think version 1.04 is stable now. I think that my new lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm is really useful because it is not complicated , so it is easy to reason about and it doesn't need ABA prevention and it doesn't need Hazard pointers and it doesn't have false sharing, please look at its source code inside LockfreeStackBounded.pas inside the zipfile, in my next posts i will give you all the explanation of my new algorithm. Lockfree bounded LIFO stack and FIFO queue were updated to version 1.04 You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>: Jul 14 09:52AM -0700 > Your original claim was: Classes cannot be instantiated if their internal > structure is not known. I explained in detail why that's an incorrect > assertion. [...] boltar's posts are unworthy of my response, but I will comment on the idea that class layout has to be represented in the binary. #include <iostream> int main() { struct foo { int x; int y; int z; }; foo obj; obj.z = 42; std::cout << obj.z << '\n'; } This program prints 42. The compiler could generate code that just calls std::puts("42"), but let's set that aside and assume that an object of type foo is actually created at run time and its z member is written and read. The generated code depends on the size of foo (say, 12 bytes) and the size and offset of z (say, 4 bytes at offset 8). It doesn't depend on any information about x or y. So examining the binary might not tell you that z is the third member, or anything about the first two. It might be identical to the executable for a program in which the structure is replaced by three standalone objects of type int. The code to access obj.z might use, say, an offset from the frame pointer without any reference to the fact that obj.z is a struct member. All the executable has to do is implement the visible *behavior* of the program. A lot of information can be lost during compilation. Of course a compiler *could* generate a binary executable that does contains all this information. It's just not required to. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| 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