Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #69716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-11-12 10:54 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-11-14 11:45 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 10:54 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 11:24 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 14:11 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 14:39 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-11-12 16:46 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 17:40 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-11-12 20:23 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 15:21 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:09 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 06:34 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 22:00 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 07:26 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 22:33 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 22:33 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 07:51 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 07:50 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 23:14 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 10:43 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-12 15:14 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:11 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-14 07:53 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 16:57 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-14 08:16 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 17:26 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 17:28 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-14 08:30 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 17:33 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:41 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 09:31 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-15 21:47 +0000
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 13:56 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-16 18:07 +0000
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 13:55 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-16 22:13 +0000
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 18:40 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-17 18:39 -0500
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 20:59 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 21:00 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-18 08:25 -0500
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-18 18:24 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 13:59 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-16 11:08 +1300
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-15 15:39 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 07:22 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-16 08:06 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 17:13 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-16 08:26 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 19:27 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-16 10:37 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-16 19:47 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-16 11:34 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 09:17 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 01:52 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 11:23 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 03:22 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 14:20 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 06:39 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 15:49 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 22:54 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-18 08:03 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 15:39 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-28 16:33 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 22:48 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-11 00:24 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-14 07:16 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-14 08:55 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-21 02:01 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-21 06:00 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 15:58 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-17 21:01 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-18 07:00 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 22:45 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-18 07:52 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-18 08:10 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 23:23 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-18 20:26 +1300
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-17 23:05 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 15:44 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-28 16:43 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-11 06:41 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:33 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-11-14 19:08 +0000
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 20:12 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:35 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:32 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:37 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 09:32 +0100
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 13:06 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-14 02:29 -0800
Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 11:45 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-18 08:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtfn7$b36$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #69879 |
do you want to do pettifoggery while having lost in the actual discussion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 15:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <868snza7vj.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #69879 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> 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. 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 16:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <858925b7-12ba-4b1f-bb6a-1452c472ea8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70099 |
On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> 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. 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. > 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 ... I think Bonita uses such statements just to post something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-10 22:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86lfqe32uv.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #70101 |
Tiib writes: > On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> <<D6 F6 [05b6]>> Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-11 00:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7be055f-4a4f-4bec-ba37-91930ae2e976@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #71276 |
On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Tiib writes: > > > On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > >> <<D6 F6 [05b6]>> Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> 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). I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words mean nothing in essence. Word may be used in one meaning in one language in totally different meaning in other language and never used in any meaning in third language. Meaning is what people wanted to express with those. Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain words are used by certain people to express something and so these words have that meaning. In C++ standard these words are not used to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 07:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86eew2gjaa.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #71278 |
Tiib writes: > On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: [...] >> 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). > > I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words > mean nothing in essence. Word may be used in one meaning in one > language in totally different meaning in other language and never > used in any meaning in third language. Meaning is what people > wanted to express with those. > Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain > words are used by certain people to express something and so these > words have that meaning. In C++ standard these words are not used > to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++. When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the way that they are likely to be most commonly understood. Using dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information. In short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to consult them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 08:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f58cd88-2615-43bc-a0a1-bc900132dd41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #71340 |
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:16:57 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Tiib writes: > > > On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > [...] > > >> 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). > > > > I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words > > mean nothing in essence. Word may be used in one meaning in one > > language in totally different meaning in other language and never > > used in any meaning in third language. Meaning is what people > > wanted to express with those. > > Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain > > words are used by certain people to express something and so these > > words have that meaning. In C++ standard these words are not used > > to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++. > > When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or > writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the > way that they are likely to be most commonly understood. Using > dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is > widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they > provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information. In > short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to > consult them. I usually do not communicate with purpose of using English. However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that "bald" has roughly two meanings: 1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering. 2: simple, unadorned, blunt. So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant. So it makes me unsure about what you complain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-21 02:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86v9p5jfh6.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #71344 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes: > On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:16:57 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Tiib writes: >> >>> On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> 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). >>> >>> I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words >>> mean nothing in essence. Word may be used in one meaning in one >>> language in totally different meaning in other language and never >>> used in any meaning in third language. Meaning is what people >>> wanted to express with those. >>> Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain >>> words are used by certain people to express something and so these >>> words have that meaning. In C++ standard these words are not used >>> to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++. >> >> When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or >> writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the >> way that they are likely to be most commonly understood. Using >> dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is >> widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they >> provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information. In >> short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to >> consult them. > > I usually do not communicate with purpose of using English. > However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that > "bald" has roughly two meanings: > 1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering. > 2: simple, unadorned, blunt. > So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant. > So it makes me unsure about what you complain. Because I think the phrase doesn't convey the meaning you want to convey. Or to say that another way, what you think the phrase says is not how many or most people will read it. (Incidentally, I wouldn't call my comment a complaint, but that isn't important, just saying fyi.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-21 06:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <758dbe40-c3a0-449d-af5d-b62220ac5fd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #71479 |
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 5:01:26 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > 嘱 Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes: ... > > However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that > > "bald" has roughly two meanings: > > 1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering. > > 2: simple, unadorned, blunt. > > So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant. > > So it makes me unsure about what you complain. > > Because I think the phrase doesn't convey the meaning you want > to convey. Or to say that another way, what you think the > phrase says is not how many or most people will read it. 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012 As Öö Tiib has already mentioned, Wikipedia says that "bald assertion" means a statement used "without proof or evidence of truth". Wiktionary <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bald> gives two meanings for bald that specifically apply to statements: meaning #4 is "Unembellished", and meaning #5 is "Without evidence or support being provided.". Meaning #5 can be seen as a special case of meaning #4 - the missing embellishments include the evidence and support. When I do a general Google search for "bald assertion", all of the top hits support either meaning #4 or #5. In 56 years of reading English, I can't remember ever having read a use of "bald assertion" that didn't match meaning #5. I don't remember it ever being used to point out the lack of any kind of embellishment other than the lack of a supporting argument. So what is it that you claim is the correct meaning of the phrase, one that you don't think he meant when he used that phrase?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-17 15:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqrn7d$efh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #69821 |
> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler > itself to decide. Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) allows this is not conforming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-17 21:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <qqt8k7$a30$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #69865 |
On 11/17/2019 6:58 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler >> itself to decide. > > Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) allows > this is not conforming. Wrt the work I did wrt straddling cache lines, well, it was all in assembly language. Pre C++11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-18 07:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtc1a$m4k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #69874 |
>> Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) allows >> this is not conforming. > Wrt the work I did wrt straddling cache lines, well, it was all in > assembly language. Pre C++11. >ou have the gift of contributing continuously to things that have nothing to do with the topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-17 22:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d0d466e-34ea-458a-9933-045be32bbf39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69865 |
On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:59:03 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: > > Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler > > itself to decide. > > Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) allows > this is not conforming. That is a bald and groundless assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-18 07:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtf31$ccd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #69877 |
>>> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler >>> itself to decide. >> Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) >> allows this is not conforming. > That is a bald and groundless assertion. "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be allocated. ... The result of the alignof operator reflects the alignment requirement of the type in the complete-object case." So if you pack your data tighter than the alignment-requirements allow, this is not conforming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-18 08:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtg5c$bc6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #69878 |
>> "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place >> restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be >> allocated. ... > ... > The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used > as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of > a subobject. > ... Since you can't get the alignment-requiremen of both with the alignof -operator I didn't say any different. >> So if you pack your data tighter than the alignment-requirements >> allow, this is not conforming. > Members are subobjects not complete objects. That's pettifogging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-17 23:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9610eb22-1e56-4a8f-8ede-3400ed3e68a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69880 |
On Monday, 18 November 2019 09:10:46 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: > >> "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place > >> restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be > >> allocated. ... > > > ... > > The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used > > as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of > > a subobject. > > ... > > Since you can't get the alignment-requiremen of both with the alignof > -operator I didn't say any different. No, you can't you quoted and now erased it back. Restoring: On Monday, 18 November 2019 08:52:27 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: > >> The result of the alignof operator reflects the alignment requirement > >> of the type in the complete-object case. I have written it whole week. > >> So if you pack your data tighter than the alignment-requirements > >> allow, this is not conforming. > > > Members are subobjects not complete objects. > > That's pettifogging. You think that you can change what standard says by erasing attributions and context in Usenet post? :D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-18 20:26 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <h3evdnF4cl5U23@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69883 |
On 18/11/2019 20:23, Öö Tiib wrote: > > You think that you can change what standard says by erasing attributions > and context in Usenet post? :D > What else did you expect? -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-17 23:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86721e66-6079-42a0-8be5-be8342a6f4f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69878 |
On Monday, 18 November 2019 08:52:27 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: > >>> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler > >>> itself to decide. > > >> Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) > >> allows this is not conforming. > > > That is a bald and groundless assertion. > > "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place > restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be > allocated. ... ... The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of a subobject. ... > The result of the alignof operator reflects the alignment requirement > of the type in the complete-object case." > > So if you pack your data tighter than the alignment-requirements > allow, this is not conforming. Members are subobjects not complete objects. "Objects can contain other objects, called /subobjects/. A subobject can be a member subobject, a baseclass subobject, or an array element."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <864kyna7m2.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #69882 |
Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
> On Monday, 18 November 2019 08:52:27 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>>>>> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler
>>>>> itself to decide.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype)
>>>> allows this is not conforming.
>>>
>>> That is a bald and groundless assertion.
>>
>> "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place
>> restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be
>> allocated. ...
>
> ...
> The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used
> as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of
> a subobject.
> ...
No it cannot. Refer to n4659, section 6.11, paragraph 1. Note
in particular the last sentence, which says in part (with my
emphasis added):
An object type imposes an alignment requirement on EVERY
OBJECT of that type
There is no provision for the alignment varying according to
whether the object is a complete object or a subobject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 16:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53cf34eb-a6b7-4459-aef9-ec3297bdccb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70100 |
On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:45:04 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes: > > > On Monday, 18 November 2019 08:52:27 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote: > > > >>>>> Nonsense. What is aligned or misaligned is up to compiler > >>>>> itself to decide. > >>>> > >>>> Wrong. If you pack your members tighter than alignof(membertype) > >>>> allows this is not conforming. > >>> > >>> That is a bald and groundless assertion. > >> > >> "Object types have alignment requirements (6.9.1, 6.9.2) which place > >> restrictions on the addresses at which an object of that type may be > >> allocated. ... > > > > ... > > The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used > > as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of > > a subobject. > > ... > > No it cannot. Refer to n4659, section 6.11, paragraph 1. Note > in particular the last sentence, which says in part (with my > emphasis added): > > An object type imposes an alignment requirement on EVERY > OBJECT of that type > > There is no provision for the alignment varying according to > whether the object is a complete object or a subobject. Very next paragraph #2 says that: "The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of a subobject."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web