Viewing profile — nobugs

FWIW: all allocators tested are user-space allocators - and moreover, to achieve this kind of performance they MUST be user-space (as user-kernel switch with all the checks is waaa…

Good point but adjusting allocators from default is a separate task - which is better to be done by fans of respective allocator. If somebody is able to adjust their-favorite-alloc…

> I mean it's only the vast majority of concurrent systems which are built on shared-memory concurrency. ...which doesn't mean they work (~="they pretend to work, but happen to fai…

> so the semantics are much closer to Rust's references. Not really; I see Rust references (enforced in compile-time) ~= OP's "naked pointers" with limitations on scope. 'soft poin…

I'm still speaking about reference-counted RC , which inevitably suffers from memory leaks. And moreover - _any_ implementation which avoids throwing an exception, in quite a few u…

> Rust's (safe) pointers and references don't throw exceptions on explicit use Which essentially goes at the cost of having Java-style semantic memory leaks (very generally, _any_ …

FWIW: in general, simpler controllers (especially those in-order ones) tend to be much more friendly to branching (exactly because they're not out-of-order). NB: I am not arguing w…

> Pointer reads must check the tag ID and throw, which is like a read barrier Usually, "read barrier" is understood as a multithreaded stuff - and OP has nothing to do with MT. In …

To the best of my knowledge, the only compilers to exploit overflows, are GCC/Clang (and those commercial compilers I know about, explicitly said that they are NOT going to exploit…

Yep, this one. On CPPCON17, Olivier Giroux has said: "[when designing Volta,] we were literally quoting C++ standard to each other".

Of course. The point is that (IF there is enough interest in the idea) these rules are simple enough (in particular, they're inherently local, i.e. don't require analysis to go bey…

I happen to like quite a few things from it, but... there is a Big Fat Hairy Difference(tm) between "safe" and merely "safer". Make it "guaranteed to be safe" (which will most like…

> that performance is worse due to the checks. I'd argue that use cases for 'soft pointers' are about the same as that of Rust's RC , which also incurs runtime costs (very briefly …

Well, the point of the OP goes further than that. Two Big Questions are (a) what to do with the non-owning back references (such as backref going up the owning tree) - for this 'so…

> You can static_cast a void * into other kinds of pointers. Moreover, you can use static_cast for downcasts (from the parent class to child class) - without runtime costs of dynam…

std::unique_ptr won't allow you to have 'owning' reference cycles; neither 'owning' reference cycles are really necessary in real-world programs.

-fwrapv should fix it (no warranties of any kind, batteries not included).

FWIW: IMO, we should separate CQRS and ES. CQRS is a Good Thing(tm); for a real-world example of it in work on a not-so-shabby system processing 10B+ transactions/year - see http:/…