“That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#2In that post Linus says something I don't understand in that post:
"... So with a constant, we have
sizeof( 1 ? NULL : (int *) 1)
Is Linus saying that the condition of the ternary operation doesn't matter if one of the sides is NULL? That it then always evaluates to the other side? That's not what happens when I try it. Or are there special rules when sizeof is applied?
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#3In that post Linus says something I don't understand in that post: "... So with a constant, we have sizeof( 1 ? NULL : (int *) 1) and the rule is that if one of the sides of a ternary operation with pointers is NULL, the end result is the other type (int *)." Is Linus saying that the condition of the ternary operation doesn't matter if one of the sides is NULL? That it then always evaluates to the other side? That's…
Oh, I get it now: Linus wasn't talking about the values, but about the types. In this case, the result will be a NULL pointer of type (int *).
Sorry, nothing to see here.
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#4truly a thing of beaty
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#5Truly a thing of beaty
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#6I really need this for libc optimizations. So far it only worked in C++ mode or newer clang's, but not in gcc.
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#7Isn't this what GCC's `__builtin_constant_p()` does?
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#8In that post Linus says something I don't understand in that post: "... So with a constant, we have sizeof( 1 ? NULL : (int *) 1) and the rule is that if one of the sides of a ternary operation with pointers is NULL, the end result is the other type (int *)." Is Linus saying that the condition of the ternary operation doesn't matter if one of the sides is NULL? That it then always evaluates to the other side? That's…
Oh, I get it now: Linus wasn't talking about the values, but about the types. In this case, the result will be a NULL pointer of type (int *). Sorry, nothing to see here.
I just had the same confusion. Thanks for figuring it out so I didn’t have to!
Re: “That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.” – Linus Torvalds
#9>I am in awe of your truly marvelously disgusting hack. It's truly a work of art.
Is this how Linus conveys the same thing as his old temper tantrums? Wtf I love the Code of Conduct now. Those anti-exclusion advocates have built a better Linus while still letting him maintain the standards that give us a better Linux!
This drama is truly 10/10, would rewatch.