Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: std::atomic::is_lock_free() Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:48:40 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <86lfqe32uv.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <98e27cbe-79a4-4875-8aaa-a45c1eab293d@googlegroups.com> <4a9ef580-84eb-4782-8d9a-440504086ca1@googlegroups.com>

<633f2371-1a23-4ba5-a2ac-1de2b8109a9b@googlegroups.com>

<6296f03e-f997-4df4-a64a-205548147fb2@googlegroups.com> <6ab6d8ee-0bb4-4238-ae42-d70db528fec1@googlegroups.com> <669f64c5-28fc-427a-9151-57e6c2e08b27@googlegroups.com> <27be0974-6f5d-481a-a847-8956bb5c8780@googlegroups.com> <868snza7vj.fsf@linuxsc.com> <858925b7-12ba-4b1f-bb6a-1452c472ea8b@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a658bb27d1b88b897660621da5fe7a9e"; logging-data="19114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VwBQ9WffXN3fsQZi9YYsFABZ7ozvMdtM=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jVhRqXc1o2l3f9L65c4ar8uSTik= sha1:D2yyRlQYloXzyz7KhB+7CtSKgv4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:71276 Tiib writes: > On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> <> Tiib writes: >> >>> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:49:59 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> >>>> The standard says that all objects of complete types have a poper >>>> alignment. >>> >>> That is bald, groundless and nonsensical assertion. >>> All objects *must* have complete types in C++ program: >>> "A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives >>> the object an incomplete type." >> >> Not counting the misspelling of proper, there is nothing nonsensical >> about it. Furthermore although the C++ standard doesn't use those >> exact words, it does imply that the statement is true. > > Nonsensical is to assert that standard says something specially about > properties of objects of complete types when these are the only kind > of objects that may exist in well-formed program. I think you misunderstand the English word nonsensical. A statement can be unlikely, silly, or ridiculous, but none of those make it nonsensical. In fact to say a statement is unlikely more or less automatically implies it is sensical. > If you mean (leaving the nonsense aside) that "all objects must have > proper alignment" is said by standard in some other wording then feel > free to quote, I have found it not. I mean I find the statement consistent with what the standard does say. >> Incidentally, I think the word "bald" doesn't mean what you think it >> means. The statement "the sun is shining today" could accurately, >> even if perhaps confusingly, be termed a "bald statement". > > I used "bald assertion" in sense of "a statement used without proof > or evidence of truth". Wikipedia claims it is used in that sense > about marketing statements ... [...] Despite what Wikipedia may say, that's isn't what the word means. I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one) whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation. I routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up (yes, even though English is my first language).