ns
without adding the virtual destructor to all of my many abstract
base classes.
IOW, it's bad juju in some programming styles/domains, but not
in others.
back to lurking...
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144ht
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael N. Moran wrote:
The AVR is a bit more extreme than the Harvard arch you're describing.
The AVR has completely separate address spaces for instructions and
data. Instruction data space cannot be accessed through a data space
pointer. There are separate instruction
roach. For example:
o barrier keyword(s)
o barrier qualifier(s)
While I'm on my soap-box ...
I would like to see some sort of alignment qualifiers
added to the C++ language for those of us that need
to deal with directly with page/cache alignment
(for both types and objects.)
--
Michae
Paul Koning wrote:
"Michael" == Michael N Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Jason Merrill wrote:
>> One proposed change is to the semantics of volatile.
Michael> I'm not familiar with ia64 barrier instructions, but I *am*
Michael> familiar with
Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:12:37 -0400, "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Jason Merrill wrote:
The C++ committee (well, a subgroup represented at this meeting by Hans
Boehm) is working on a memory model that supports threaded programs.
As someon
lly address threading.
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144http://mnmoran.org
"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the key."
The Eagles, "Already Go
ed
to the MPC860 PowerPC .
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144http://mnmoran.org
"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the key."
The Eagles, "Alrea
Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:26:32 -0400, "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, device drivers that perform memory mapped I/O
on memory spaces which are "guarded" and thus need no additional
ordering/synchronization instructions.
ious things -- among which, maybe the most
"paradoxical" is to avoid code bloat.
Embedded C++ was a mistake, alas a mistake that seems to last.
Just in case there is any voting going on here ... agreed :)
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5
Paul Schlie wrote:
Michael N. Moran wrote:
I'm very much in favor of fine grained synchronization primitives
in the compiler, but not of changes to volatile semantics.
I wonder if it would be sufficient (if not preferable) to only extend
(modify) the semantics for heap/stack and const vol
e having used it for more years than I care to
remember ;-)
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144http://mnmoran.org
"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:43:38PM -0500, Michael N. Moran wrote:
Excuse me. IANALL nor am I a compiler expert but ...
what kind of optimization might be done with the information
that a reference *should* never be null? Especially within
the server code (the implementation of
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And what is the meaning of code that does this:
|
| int foo(int& a)
| {
| int*b = &a;
|
| if(b ==0)
| {
| a();
| }
| else
| {
| b();
|
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:43:38PM -0500, Michael N. Moran wrote:
Excuse me. IANALL nor am I a compiler expert but ...
what kind of optimization might be done with the information
that a reference *should* never be null? Especially within
the server code (the implementation of
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Do we want to hide the error by not crashing? Why not just do the
| math and keep running? This seems like a run-time check that
| is not a part of the C/C++ language as I understand it.
defined by
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| void buzz(Abc& b)
| {
| delete &b;
| }
|
| void baz()
| {
| Abc& a = * new Abc();
If no memory is available, the new-expression throws an exception so
the dereference never occurs.
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Wow. I'm sure there is sound reasoning for this ... but I can't
| understand what that might be given a client module could intentionally
| (if ill-adviseadly) simply invoke the function:
the
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | void buzz(Abc& b)
| > | {
| > | delete &b;
| > | }
| > | | void baz()
|
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| From info gcc:
|
| `-fdelete-null-pointer-checks'
| Use global dataflow analysis to identify and eliminate useless
| checks for null pointers. The compiler assumes that dereferencing
|
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| void bar(int& a);
|
| void foo(int* a)
| {
| // dereference: conversion to reference
| // Since there is not necessarily any object access,
| // thus no assured SEGFAULT.
| bar(*a)
h a large RAM footprint that needs to spawn a child
process with an otherwise much smaller RAM footprint.
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144http://mnmoran.org
The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
On Aug 27, 2008, at 0:27, Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
size = getpagesize(); \
mask = ~((long) size - 1);
Or even better store size after the store to mask.
That is:
int tmp = getpagesize();
*(volatile*)&mask = ~((long)tm
22 matches
Mail list logo
