Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #86894 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-12 15:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-10-15 11:34 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:57 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:01 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:16 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-13 11:38 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-16 06:24 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-17 11:04 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-11-17 16:40 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-17 23:23 -0500
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 08:16 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-11-18 16:33 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 18:54 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-18 03:47 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-18 14:52 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-11-18 16:32 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-18 19:05 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-18 18:16 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-10-13 08:02 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-13 08:08 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:35 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 02:53 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:57 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 03:05 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-10-17 06:18 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 15:29 -0500
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 02:06 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-13 11:42 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-13 15:36 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-13 23:06 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 22:30 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-14 15:27 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 14:47 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-14 14:58 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 21:01 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-15 10:28 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-15 13:39 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 12:45 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-15 15:18 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:24 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-15 15:34 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:39 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-15 15:53 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:55 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-15 15:57 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:59 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-17 15:27 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 09:04 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-17 16:13 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-10-17 09:44 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-17 17:47 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-10-18 01:10 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 16:22 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-18 05:13 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-18 15:04 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-18 17:40 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 12:14 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-19 15:12 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-10-19 15:35 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-20 16:16 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:13 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:11 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 20:03 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 07:51 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-16 17:03 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 16:34 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-16 18:51 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 18:11 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 19:18 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-16 22:02 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 21:19 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-10-16 21:24 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:38 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:48 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 22:39 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-10-16 23:49 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-17 09:54 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-17 17:31 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-17 19:56 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-17 15:29 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-17 17:33 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:55 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:06 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 15:42 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-16 19:10 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-16 21:28 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-17 10:09 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:35 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:36 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-11-02 17:46 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-10-13 11:10 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-10-13 10:49 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-10-13 12:05 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 06:34 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 15:24 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-13 15:59 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-10-14 05:54 +0000
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-10-14 09:16 +0300
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-11-16 05:41 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 10:38 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-05 11:42 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-06 01:03 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 20:49 -0800
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 00:17 -0700
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-10-14 15:33 +0200
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-16 21:37 +0100
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 15:24 -0500
Re: CHAR_BIT is not eight Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:34 +0200
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tiel12$g3n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #86986 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:39:05 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:34:03 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:24:08 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:18:27 -0000 (UTC) >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:45:49 +0100 >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:39:24 +0200 >> >> >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >> >> It's the same in C, of course - call just one little time >> >> >> conversion function and you can find half your flash is used for >> >> >> locale handling and time zones. >> >> >> >> >> >> The needs of embedded systems vary enormously - for many, the >> >> >> cost in code space or run-time efficiency for using a std::list >> >> >> or std::vector is negligible. But for others, it is very far >> >> >> from negligible. >> >> >> >> >> >> (It is relatively rare that you have to worry about /every/ >> >> >> byte of code or data space, however - though it does happen.) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Try using std::list with a custom allocator as I originally >> >> >suggested; also your quote of 7KB sounds highly dubious and >> >> >anecdotal. >> >> >> >> You really Don't Get It do you? Stick to application programming. >> > >> >Of course I get it, the question is do you? The only way I can see >> >using a few methods from std::list taking 7KB of space is the >> >overhead of exception handling; perhaps Mr Brown should try it again >> >but with exceptions disabled and a custom allocator that allocates >> >from an explicit memory pool. >> >> I've tried to explain it to you, so has he. You've obviously never >> done embedded dev, yet as usual you seem to assume you're an expert >> on the matter. Believe what you like. Something to bear in mind is >> not all compilers and linkers build in the same way as VC or gcc. > >I have done embedded dev and I am well aware of its constraints; all Suuuuuuure you have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221015165532.00005ec5@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #86987 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:53:06 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:39:05 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:34:03 -0000 (UTC) > >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:24:08 +0100 > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:18:27 -0000 (UTC) > >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:45:49 +0100 > >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:39:24 +0200 > >> >> >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> >> >> It's the same in C, of course - call just one little time > >> >> >> conversion function and you can find half your flash is used > >> >> >> for locale handling and time zones. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The needs of embedded systems vary enormously - for many, the > >> >> >> cost in code space or run-time efficiency for using a > >> >> >> std::list or std::vector is negligible. But for others, it > >> >> >> is very far from negligible. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (It is relatively rare that you have to worry about /every/ > >> >> >> byte of code or data space, however - though it does happen.) > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Try using std::list with a custom allocator as I originally > >> >> >suggested; also your quote of 7KB sounds highly dubious and > >> >> >anecdotal. > >> >> > >> >> You really Don't Get It do you? Stick to application > >> >> programming. > >> > > >> >Of course I get it, the question is do you? The only way I can > >> >see using a few methods from std::list taking 7KB of space is the > >> >overhead of exception handling; perhaps Mr Brown should try it > >> >again but with exceptions disabled and a custom allocator that > >> >allocates from an explicit memory pool. > >> > >> I've tried to explain it to you, so has he. You've obviously never > >> done embedded dev, yet as usual you seem to assume you're an expert > >> on the matter. Believe what you like. Something to bear in mind is > >> not all compilers and linkers build in the same way as VC or gcc. > > > >I have done embedded dev and I am well aware of its constraints; all > > > > Suuuuuuure you have. You are just showing your ignorance of leveraging C++ in an embedded environment. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tiel8v$ki6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #86988 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:55:32 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:53:06 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:39:05 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:34:03 -0000 (UTC) >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:24:08 +0100 >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:18:27 -0000 (UTC) >> >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:45:49 +0100 >> >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:39:24 +0200 >> >> >> >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> It's the same in C, of course - call just one little time >> >> >> >> conversion function and you can find half your flash is used >> >> >> >> for locale handling and time zones. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The needs of embedded systems vary enormously - for many, the >> >> >> >> cost in code space or run-time efficiency for using a >> >> >> >> std::list or std::vector is negligible. But for others, it >> >> >> >> is very far from negligible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (It is relatively rare that you have to worry about /every/ >> >> >> >> byte of code or data space, however - though it does happen.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Try using std::list with a custom allocator as I originally >> >> >> >suggested; also your quote of 7KB sounds highly dubious and >> >> >> >anecdotal. >> >> >> >> >> >> You really Don't Get It do you? Stick to application >> >> >> programming. >> >> > >> >> >Of course I get it, the question is do you? The only way I can >> >> >see using a few methods from std::list taking 7KB of space is the >> >> >overhead of exception handling; perhaps Mr Brown should try it >> >> >again but with exceptions disabled and a custom allocator that >> >> >allocates from an explicit memory pool. >> >> >> >> I've tried to explain it to you, so has he. You've obviously never >> >> done embedded dev, yet as usual you seem to assume you're an expert >> >> on the matter. Believe what you like. Something to bear in mind is >> >> not all compilers and linkers build in the same way as VC or gcc. >> > >> >I have done embedded dev and I am well aware of its constraints; all >> > >> >> Suuuuuuure you have. > >You are just showing your ignorance of leveraging C++ in an embedded >environment. "Leveraging"? Run out of arguments and now resorting to buzzwords are we? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221015165956.0000489f@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #86989 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:57:19 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:55:32 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:53:06 -0000 (UTC) > >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:39:05 +0100 > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:34:03 -0000 (UTC) > >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:24:08 +0100 > >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:18:27 -0000 (UTC) > >> >> >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 12:45:49 +0100 > >> >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:39:24 +0200 > >> >> >> >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> >> >> >> It's the same in C, of course - call just one little time > >> >> >> >> conversion function and you can find half your flash is > >> >> >> >> used for locale handling and time zones. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The needs of embedded systems vary enormously - for many, > >> >> >> >> the cost in code space or run-time efficiency for using a > >> >> >> >> std::list or std::vector is negligible. But for others, > >> >> >> >> it is very far from negligible. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> (It is relatively rare that you have to worry about > >> >> >> >> /every/ byte of code or data space, however - though it > >> >> >> >> does happen.) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Try using std::list with a custom allocator as I originally > >> >> >> >suggested; also your quote of 7KB sounds highly dubious and > >> >> >> >anecdotal. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You really Don't Get It do you? Stick to application > >> >> >> programming. > >> >> > > >> >> >Of course I get it, the question is do you? The only way I can > >> >> >see using a few methods from std::list taking 7KB of space is > >> >> >the overhead of exception handling; perhaps Mr Brown should > >> >> >try it again but with exceptions disabled and a custom > >> >> >allocator that allocates from an explicit memory pool. > >> >> > >> >> I've tried to explain it to you, so has he. You've obviously > >> >> never done embedded dev, yet as usual you seem to assume you're > >> >> an expert on the matter. Believe what you like. Something to > >> >> bear in mind is not all compilers and linkers build in the same > >> >> way as VC or gcc. > >> > > >> >I have done embedded dev and I am well aware of its constraints; > >> >all > >> > > >> > >> Suuuuuuure you have. > > > >You are just showing your ignorance of leveraging C++ in an embedded > >environment. > > "Leveraging"? Run out of arguments and now resorting to buzzwords are > we? :) If you think the word "leveraging" is a buzzword then I can only draw the conclusion that either English isn't your native language or you are incredibly dumb. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tijs8k$712$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #86990 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:59:56 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:57:19 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >You are just showing your ignorance of leveraging C++ in an embedded >> >environment. >> >> "Leveraging"? Run out of arguments and now resorting to buzzwords are >> we? :) > >If you think the word "leveraging" is a buzzword then I can only draw >the conclusion that either English isn't your native language or you >are incredibly dumb. Its just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't know what they're talking about in order to sound intelligent. Its just a fancy way of saying "using" but that sounds so mundane, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a7745ba-7287-40d4-b5bc-c81614da34ben@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87042 |
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't know what they're talking > about in order to sound intelligent. :-) I recall one day in a meeting explaining something about a .Net user interface I was working on, and the boss asked, "have you leveraged the HTML?" Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tijuuj$1jc8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87044 |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> >> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't know what >they're talking >> about in order to sound intelligent. > >:-) > >I recall one day in a meeting explaining something about a .Net user interface >I was >working on, and the boss asked, "have you leveraged the HTML?" Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to drill down and run with the mission statement? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tik0pg$3g0ml$1@redfloyd.dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87045 |
On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >>> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't know what >> they're talking >>> about in order to sound intelligent. >> >> :-) >> >> I recall one day in a meeting explaining something about a .Net user interface >> I was >> working on, and the boss asked, "have you leveraged the HTML?" > > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to drill down > and run with the mission statement? :) > I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221017174727.000016f1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #87048 |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: > On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) > > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, > >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >>> > >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't > >>> know what > >> they're talking > >>> about in order to sound intelligent. > [...] > > > > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to > > drill down and run with the mission statement? :) > > > > I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tikndf$4hi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87049 |
On 10/17/2022 6:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 > red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >>> "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >>>> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't >>>>> know what >>>> they're talking >>>>> about in order to sound intelligent. >> [...] >>> >>> Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to >>> drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >>> >> >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. > > The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. > > /Flibble > You are lacking a vision of the synergies ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tiko3o$3i141$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87056 |
On 10/17/2022 4:10 PM, Manfred wrote: > On 10/17/2022 6:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 >> red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >>>> "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >>>>> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't >>>>>> know what >>>>> they're talking >>>>>> about in order to sound intelligent. >>> [...] >>>> >>>> Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to >>>> drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >>> >>> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. >> >> The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. >> >> /Flibble >> > > You are lacking a vision of the synergies ;) > Apoplectic synergistic energy formations flowing within n-ary space...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 05:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1328b2ff-4f5c-44fa-a789-879f6abd58d1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87056 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:11:00 AM UTC+1, Manfred wrote: > On 10/17/2022 6:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 > > red floyd <no.spa...@its.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) > >>> "daniel...@gmail.com" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, > >>>> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't > >>>>> know what > >>>> they're talking > >>>>> about in order to sound intelligent. > >> [...] > >>> > >>> Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to > >>> drill down and run with the mission statement? :) > >>> > >> > >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. > > > > The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. > > > > /Flibble > > > You are lacking a vision of the synergies ;) When I first saw "role model" used as a verb I thought "No, I'm not going to let this become a phrase". But it seems I failed. I wonder if my managers have any idea why I put "Strongly disagree" whenever a survey asks me whether I think top management role model the corporate values.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <timf91$1ahh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87049 |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:27 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 >red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >> > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >> >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who don't >> >>> know what >> >> they're talking >> >>> about in order to sound intelligent. >> [...] >> > >> > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order to >> > drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >> > >> >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. > >The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. When its used in place of "use" then thats exactly what it is. Leverage is the outcome of using a lever, not a programming language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221018174005.000067b2@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #87066 |
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:04:01 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:27 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 > >red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) > >> > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, > >> >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who > >> >>> don't know what > >> >> they're talking > >> >>> about in order to sound intelligent. > >> [...] > >> > > >> > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order > >> > to drill down and run with the mission statement? :) > >> > > >> > >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. > > > >The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. > > When its used in place of "use" then thats exactly what it is. > Leverage is the outcome of using a lever, not a programming language. Yes leverage is the outcome of using a lever which is why it is a perfectly cromulent word to use when describing using a METAPHORICAL lever. It is NOT a buzzword. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8682ecf5-b531-4814-86a2-2c6fb21c55ecn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87068 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Yes leverage is the outcome of using a lever which is why it is a > perfectly cromulent word to use when describing using a METAPHORICAL > lever. It is NOT a buzzword. > It's leveraging the English ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tip448$10q5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87068 |
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:40:05 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:04:01 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:27 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 >> >red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >> >> > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >> >> >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who >> >> >>> don't know what >> >> >> they're talking >> >> >>> about in order to sound intelligent. >> >> [...] >> >> > >> >> > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order >> >> > to drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >> >> > >> >> >> >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. >> > >> >The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. >> >> When its used in place of "use" then thats exactly what it is. >> Leverage is the outcome of using a lever, not a programming language. > >Yes leverage is the outcome of using a lever which is why it is a >perfectly cromulent word to use when describing using a METAPHORICAL Cromulent? Did you just flip a dictionary open at a random page or are you just taking the piss? >lever. It is NOT a buzzword. Lever implies doing something you couldn't do before without it. It does not apply in this case ergo you're just using it as a buzzword in order to try and sound smart. Didn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zPU3L.268948$IRd5.202473@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #87077 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:40:05 +0100 >Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:04:01 -0000 (UTC) >>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:27 +0100 >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>> >On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 >>> >red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >>> >> > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >>> >> >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who >>> >> >>> don't know what >>> >> >> they're talking >>> >> >>> about in order to sound intelligent. >>> >> [...] >>> >> > >>> >> > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order >>> >> > to drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. >>> > >>> >The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. >>> >>> When its used in place of "use" then thats exactly what it is. >>> Leverage is the outcome of using a lever, not a programming language. >> >>Yes leverage is the outcome of using a lever which is why it is a >>perfectly cromulent word to use when describing using a METAPHORICAL > >Cromulent? Did you just flip a dictionary open at a random page or are you >just taking the piss? In this case, the use of "Cromulent" was perfectly cromulent :-) The term originally was coined by a Simpsons writer, and has subsequently reached the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tirs8r$1or8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87078 |
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:35:59 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:40:05 +0100 >>Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:04:01 -0000 (UTC) >>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:27 +0100 >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>>> >On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:44:31 -0700 >>>> >red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On 10/17/2022 9:13 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) >>>> >> > "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-4, >>>> >> >> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Its [leveraging] just buzzword bullshit, used by people who >>>> >> >>> don't know what >>>> >> >> they're talking >>>> >> >>> about in order to sound intelligent. >>>> >> [...] >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Did he maybe have a vision that he wanted to whiteboard in order >>>> >> > to drill down and run with the mission statement? :) >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> I think he just wanted to actualize the synergies. >>>> > >>>> >The word "leverage" is NOT a buzzword. >>>> >>>> When its used in place of "use" then thats exactly what it is. >>>> Leverage is the outcome of using a lever, not a programming language. >>> >>>Yes leverage is the outcome of using a lever which is why it is a >>>perfectly cromulent word to use when describing using a METAPHORICAL >> >>Cromulent? Did you just flip a dictionary open at a random page or are you >>just taking the piss? > >In this case, the use of "Cromulent" was perfectly cromulent :-) > >The term originally was coined by a Simpsons writer, and has >subsequently reached the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Rather apt I suppose given Flibble does seem to impersonate Bart :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tiet7k$2rq0g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86985 |
Am 15.10.2022 um 17:34 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > I've tried to explain it to you, so has he. You've obviously never done > embedded dev, yet as usual you seem to assume you're an expert on the matter. > Believe what you like. Something to bear in mind is not all compilers and > linkers build in the same way as VC or gcc. Are there any C++20-compliant compilers other than MSVC, g++ and clang ? Even Intel has moved to clang and partitially LLVM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 20:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tiet4e$2rq0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86981 |
Am 15.10.2022 um 13:45 schrieb Mr Flibble: > Try using std::list with a custom allocator as I originally suggested; > also your quote of 7KB sounds highly dubious and anecdotal. This doesn't work since the allocator allocates the items at at different type than for which the allocator is specified. std::list -Items encapsulates the type for which the list is speciefied in another structure that has the forward and backward-pointers to have only a single allocation and not a link-object and a T-object which the link points separately. So nearly all containers re-class that allocator with rebind_alloc<>. AFAIK having a 1:1 custom allocator in that sense is only possible with the containers that have random access iterators.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web