61–70 of 122 posts
This appears to be the source of the backlash: https://izzys.casa/2024/11/on-safe-cxx/
as a sibling comment said: "idiots all around".
or perhaps simply extremely bad at interpreting and handling social skills and emotions.
The author of the paper is not competent in the subject matter. A compiler can make assumptions that behavior is well defined, and it can also identify situations where it is confirmed undefined. All of that reasoning happens before runtime. For instance, and unreachable assertion works by invoking undefined behavior. What identified by the function-call-like syntax unreachable(). If we have: S; unreachable(); then,…
I agree the title of the paper is unfortunate. I do not believe the author was intentionally trying to send an antisemitic message, but I do not know him well (I corresponded with him about his other paper)
The author of the paper is not competent in the subject matter. A compiler can make assumptions that behavior is well defined, and it can also identify situations where it is confirmed undefined. All of that reasoning happens before runtime. For instance, and unreachable assertion works by invoking undefined behavior. What identified by the function-call-like syntax unreachable(). If we have: S; unreachable(); then,…
As it is based on my C paper, I can comment on this. While the compiler reasons at translation-time the question is whether an operation that UB is allowed to affect previous observable behavior at run-time. We looked at this and came to the conclusions that 1) the wording of the C standard never really allowed this (but the C++ standard did), 2) it is completely useless for worthwhile optimizations, 3) examples wher…
If statement S has observable behavior, then that may not be removed by an optimization.
But if S is declared as not being reached, does it still have observable behavior?
Is my example considered a case of UB affecting prior observable behavior? Why or why not?
Not saying I'd agree with it even with the whole story, I don't know, but I am dubious of this being the full story, because in fact communities are not _that_ crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it is based on my C paper, I can comment on this. While the compiler reasons at translation-time the question is whether an operation that UB is allowed to affect previous observable behavior at run-time. We looked at this and came to the conclusions that 1) the wording of the C standard never really allowed this (but the C++ standard did), 2) it is completely useless for worthwhile optimizations, 3) examples wher…
Observable behavior is a formal concept: a normative term in ISO C. If statement S has observable behavior, then that may not be removed by an optimization. But if S is declared as not being reached, does it still have observable behavior? Is my example considered a case of UB affecting prior observable behavior? Why or why not?
A; // observable
B; // UB
If A is not reachable, the code will never be executed at run-time, so while there is no UB at run-time this is irrelevant as the code can simply be removed anyway because it is not reachable. For "unreachable()" the question is tricky and I think this might need to be clarified specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Observable behavior is a formal concept: a normative term in ISO C. If statement S has observable behavior, then that may not be removed by an optimization. But if S is declared as not being reached, does it still have observable behavior? Is my example considered a case of UB affecting prior observable behavior? Why or why not?
For: A; // observable B; // UB and when A is reachable, the compiler can not remove A even if it sees at compile-time that B has UB when executed. This is the case in C but not in C++. If A is not reachable, the code will never be executed at run-time, so while there is no UB at run-time this is irrelevant as the code can simply be removed anyway because it is not reachable. For "unreachable()" the question is tricky…
(Because unreachable is meant to be used in certain ways, implementations can give it relevant diagnostic powers. But all it means "please make the spot in the program have no defined behavior").
If the implementation cannot remove A on grounds of B being undefined, then you need an awkward special case for when B is the unreachable gizmo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For: A; // observable B; // UB and when A is reachable, the compiler can not remove A even if it sees at compile-time that B has UB when executed. This is the case in C but not in C++. If A is not reachable, the code will never be executed at run-time, so while there is no UB at run-time this is irrelevant as the code can simply be removed anyway because it is not reachable. For "unreachable()" the question is tricky…
It's not tricky though. Unreachable invokes UB. It's something like the most canonically reduced version of B that we can write. (Because unreachable is meant to be used in certain ways, implementations can give it relevant diagnostic powers. But all it means "please make the spot in the program have no defined behavior"). If the implementation cannot remove A on grounds of B being undefined, then you need an awkward…
What actually happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1gynl1v/c_stan...
This slashdot article has a big gap in it 1. Person publishes a thing with a title including the word “Question” 2. People say this title has some resonance to do with the Nazi genocide and ask him to change it 3. He refuses to change it 5. He gets expelled from the committee You see the missing piece? Unlike the title, the body text doesn’t say he was expelled for the title or even for refusing to change it. It says…
I'm not sure if you are being serious or not. If the former, there are two problems with the "employer": (1) finding a problem where there is none, (2) firing a person for sticking to the common sense rather that giving in to meaningless accusations.
I think what GP was getting at is that is something along the lines of if you were accused of misconduct, and in being called into your manager's office for them to ask you about it you behaved unprofessionally enough they no longer thought you were a good fit for the company regardless of whether the accusation was true, they are entirely justified in wanting to end employment. A falsehood can reveal a separate truth about someone.
E.g. Someone falsely says you are always late to group meetings for a group project, and in being questioned you start throwing out racial slurs. Whether you were late is now a lesser issue, and while you woulf be technically correct to say you were falsely accused of being late to a few meeting and were then fired, that isn't correctly relaying the relevant information about why you were fired.
I have no information about whether this is what happened, but I think this is what the GP was trying to express about the information we have as it was presented.
This appears to be the source of the backlash: https://izzys.casa/2024/11/on-safe-cxx/
Absolutely unhinged rant accusing everyone of being some kind of Nazi or sexual predator. Seeing the "content warning" and design of the page should already be enough to know exactly what to expect about what you are about to read, and what kind of person wrote it.
Do you have some information that would lead to doubt on Arthur's conviction?
Can you elaborate on what "sort of person" means exactly? Is that just to refer to people who point out that someone in a community has raped a child, been convicted of raping a child and is on a sex offenders register? Or some other category?
I think it's troubling that so many people in the replies are seemingly more offended over some swear words than the literal rape of a child.