m all).
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
On 7/26/16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 July 2016 at 14:31, Warren D Smith wrote:
>> 1. Gcc with stdint.h already
>> provides such nice predefined types as uint8_t.
>> Sizes provided are 8,16,32, and 64.
>> In some sense uint1_t is available too (stdbool.h)
&g
On 7/26/16, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote:
>
>> (And in the case of uint4_t, it actually would not even BE an
>> "extension" since as I said,
>> the standard already allows providing other sizes.)
>
> Only sizes whic
ecision.
You can lead a horse to water...
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
the thing is, I'm not willing to write that stuff for you unless
you promise to actually add these things to GCC. So, will anybody
make that promise?
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
e
very unsafe for a few reasons, but by
adding some compiler options and/or language extensions to allow
adding safe versions
of that stuff, GCC could make it a lot easier on programmers to get a
lot safer with
near zero effort.
But hey, nearly all those ideas actually require work, meanwhile
ld you to
remove div(a,b) from GCC because it was a fairly silly complication
and unnecessary feature, that'd be true, and yet you would tell me I
was an idiot.
If I tell you to put in mul(a,b): then it is a less-silly,
more-useful, thing, which
you just (see previous sentence) agreed with me was wo
2"?
I mean how can you justify building them in, but not this?
You cannot. And that isn't because I failed to "learn basic principles about
language design."
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
elves back when you made the decision to add X,
were being an idiot. Which is strange, but makes it clear it
ultimately is not I who it criticizing you, it is you who are
criticizing you.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
ich it'd be nice to fix, and
>> not hard to fix at
>> all, would be this:
>>int foo( int a, int b, int c, int d, double e ){
>> code
>>}
>> is silly. It would be better if we could write it as
>> int foo( int a,b,c,d; double e ){
>>
d.
The reason my emails are so incredibly long is, I keep on having
utterly obvious truths disputed by people who ought to know better,
and have to go back to basics to demonstrate their validity.
It would be simpler if the utterly obvious truths I state, were just accepted as
utterly obvious truths. Then there would have been a short single email.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
> Given a pointer to an array of nibbles and a length, how do I iterate
> through the array?
for(i=0; ihttp://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
cc to shut up and quit whining about this?
I do not want to actually load 0.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
or even 512; and to load it with 0s actually needs a lot
of loading of constants from the instruction stream.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
other variable (because we examine the code inside Proc to verify
this), then it was
ok and gcc should not warn.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
On 1/25/19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 13:48, Warren D Smith wrote:
>>
>> "foo" is a type that is a struct containing a uint64_t field x[4]
>> (among other things).
>>
>> bool Proc( const foo *dog ){
>>uint64_t *a, *b;
&g
re, and this hell is entirely
unnecessary, that is
what really rubs your face in it over and over.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
fle(a, b);
then
error: use of unknown builtin '__builtin_shuffle'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
18 matches
Mail list logo
