Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #68062 > unrolled thread

Static_assert in 2017 C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Static_assert in 2017 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-08-31 15:55 -0700
    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-01 11:43 +0100
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-01 04:16 -0700
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-01 13:15 +0100
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 14:56 +0200
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-09-01 14:20 +0100
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 15:35 +0200
            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-02 07:30 +1200
              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 07:16 +0200
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-02 13:13 +0200
                  Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 15:55 +0200
                    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-02 22:02 +0200
    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 12:48 +0200
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-01 09:21 -0500
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-01 09:53 -0700
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-01 22:29 -0500
            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-01 22:34 -0500
              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-02 07:32 -0700
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 20:35 -0700
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-01 22:50 -0500
            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 21:12 -0700
              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-02 00:09 -0500
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:39 -0700
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 22:49 -0700
            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 21:13 -0700
              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-02 00:20 -0500
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:41 -0700
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 07:14 +0200
            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:46 -0700
              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 07:55 +0200
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:58 -0700
                  Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 08:20 +0200
                    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 23:24 -0700
                      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 23:25 -0700
                        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 23:26 -0700
                          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 08:33 +0200
                            Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 00:18 -0700
                              Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 09:23 +0200
                                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-02 00:26 -0700
                Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:58 -0700
                  Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-01 22:59 -0700
                    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 23:04 -0700
    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-01 15:39 -0400
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-09-01 18:58 -0700
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-02 17:40 -0400
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-09-02 22:53 -0400
          Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 08:21 +0200
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-09-02 14:43 +0000
    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-01 20:48 -0700
    Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 08:25 +0200
      Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-03 00:35 -0700
        Re: Static_assert in 2017 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-03 10:31 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#68062 — Static_assert in 2017 C++

      Shalom

I have this line
static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");

in my library: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

.  I wrote that line when I was using 2011 C++ and the comment
was required.  Now I require 2017 C++ and am trying to decide between:

a. remove the comment
b. reduce the comment to just "IEEE754", or
c. leave it as it is.

Thank you.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68067

On 31/08/2019 23:55, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>        Shalom
> 
> I have this line
> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");
> 
> in my library: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
> 
> .  I wrote that line when I was using 2011 C++ and the comment
> was required.  Now I require 2017 C++ and am trying to decide between:
> 
> a. remove the comment
> b. reduce the comment to just "IEEE754", or
> c. leave it as it is.
> 
> Thank you.

Would you like us to train you on how to use the toilet too or do you 
prefer wearing diapers? Do you still require a bib when eating? When are 
you going to big school?

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into 
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who 
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – 
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are 
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What 
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery 
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a 
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68070

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:43:59 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into 
> snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5wknazzz9w

Every post.  Every time you read your signature with or without that part:

    Jesus is calling you to repent.
    Jesus is calling you to be saved.
    Jesus is calling you to be a part of His eternal Kingdom of love
    and peace and joy unspeakable.

"I stand at the door and knock," He says.

Knock knock.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68073

On 01/09/2019 12:16, rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:43:59 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
>> snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5wknazzz9w
> 
> Every post.  Every time you read your signature with or without that part:
> 
>      Jesus is calling you to repent.
>      Jesus is calling you to be saved.
>      Jesus is calling you to be a part of His eternal Kingdom of love
>      and peace and joy unspeakable.
> 
> "I stand at the door and knock," He says.
> 
> Knock knock.

No, every time I read that signature I think, oh yeah, Rick the fucktard 
who thinks Satan invented fossils.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into 
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who 
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – 
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are 
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What 
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery 
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a 
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68075

>> I have this line
>> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 
>> supported");
>> in my library: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
>> .  I wrote that line when I was using 2011 C++ and the comment
>> was required.  Now I require 2017 C++ and am trying to decide between:
>> a. remove the comment
>> b. reduce the comment to just "IEEE754", or
>> c. leave it as it is.

> Would you like us to train you on how to use the toilet too or
> do you  prefer wearing diapers? Do you still require a bib when
> eating? When are you going to big school?

The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
but your comment is rather childish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68076

On 01/09/2019 13:56, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> I have this line
>>> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 
>>> supported");
>>> in my library: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
>>> .  I wrote that line when I was using 2011 C++ and the comment
>>> was required.  Now I require 2017 C++ and am trying to decide between:
>>> a. remove the comment
>>> b. reduce the comment to just "IEEE754", or
>>> c. leave it as it is.
> 
>> Would you like us to train you on how to use the toilet too or
>> do you  prefer wearing diapers? Do you still require a bib when
>> eating? When are you going to big school?
> 
> The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
> but your comment is rather childish.

Virtually all of his posts (including this one) are feeble attempts at 
disguised advertising for his library that serves no purpose other than to 
add some bulk to his website that promotes misogyny and homophobia.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into 
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who 
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – 
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are 
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What 
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery 
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a 
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68077

>>> Would you like us to train you on how to use the toilet too or
>>> do you  prefer wearing diapers? Do you still require a bib when
>>> eating? When are you going to big school?

>> The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
>> but your comment is rather childish.

> Virtually all of his posts (including this one) are feeble attempts at 
> disguised advertising for his library that serves no purpose other than 
> to add some bulk to his website that promotes misogyny and homophobia.

Maybe, but your style of response isn't mature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68084

On 02/09/2019 01:35, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Would you like us to train you on how to use the toilet too or
>>>> do you  prefer wearing diapers? Do you still require a bib when
>>>> eating? When are you going to big school?
> 
>>> The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
>>> but your comment is rather childish.
> 
>> Virtually all of his posts (including this one) are feeble attempts at
>> disguised advertising for his library that serves no purpose other than
>> to add some bulk to his website that promotes misogyny and homophobia.
> 
> Maybe, but your style of response isn't mature.

Neither is deliberately snipping attributions...

-- 
Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68098

>>>> The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
>>>> but your comment is rather childish.

>>> Virtually all of his posts (including this one) are feeble attempts at
>>> disguised advertising for his library that serves no purpose other than
>>> to add some bulk to his website that promotes misogyny and homophobia.

>> Maybe, but your style of response isn't mature.

> Neither is deliberately snipping attributions...

You're right. I will go to the psychotherapist because of that !!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68122

On 02/09/2019 07:16, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> The issue he is talking about might be a bit nerdish,
>>>>> but your comment is rather childish.
> 
>>>> Virtually all of his posts (including this one) are feeble attempts at
>>>> disguised advertising for his library that serves no purpose other than
>>>> to add some bulk to his website that promotes misogyny and homophobia.
> 
>>> Maybe, but your style of response isn't mature.
> 
>> Neither is deliberately snipping attributions...
> 
> You're right. I will go to the psychotherapist because of that !!!!!!!!!

No, you won't.  You will just be ignored.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68123

>> You're right. I will go to the psychotherapist because of that !!!!!!!!!

> No, you won't.  You will just be ignored.

That's your hope because you want this to be sanctioned.
But this won't fulfill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68137

On 02/09/2019 15:55, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You're right. I will go to the psychotherapist because of that !!!!!!!!!
> 
>> No, you won't.  You will just be ignored.
> 
> That's your hope because you want this to be sanctioned.
> But this won't fulfill.

My hope is that you will understand the point of following the 
conventions of whatever type of discussion group, forum, etc., you are 
in - and start using proper Usenet quotations and attributions.  It 
would be better for you, better for the group, and better for the 
threads you engage in.  It won't make me agree with much of what you 
write, but it would make the threads more pleasant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68068

> I have this line
> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");

That's not necessary because no one will write a C++17-conformant 
compiler for an ancient architecture without IEEE-754-floating-points
and is realistic to expect that there will be never any future CPU
that implements floats differently.
Its just one of those compulsive nerd-assessments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68080

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:48:07 +0200, Bonita Montero
<Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I have this line
>> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");
>
>That's not necessary because no one will write a C++17-conformant 
>compiler for an ancient architecture without IEEE-754-floating-points
>and is realistic to expect that there will be never any future CPU
>that implements floats differently.
>Its just one of those compulsive nerd-assessments.


While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
supported on that compiler as you expect for both hex and binary FP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68082

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and

I'm not sure what that last part means.  For now I've changed the
line to option b:

static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"IEEE754"); 

To rephrase my original question, do you use comments at
all with static_assert if you are using 2017 C++?



Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68088

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT), woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 
>> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
>> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
>> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
>> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
>
>I'm not sure what that last part means.


It was asserted that no non-IEEE FP C++17 implementations are likely
to ever exist, since such architectures largely no longer exist.

I pointed out that the C++ compiler for IBM mainframes in the S/360
line, while not yet C++17, supports both the traditional S/360 hex
floating point format (which is decidedly *not* IEEE FP), as well as
IEEE-style FP.  And that a C++17 version of that compiler is generally
expected, and that it's expected that it will continue to support both
FP formats.

When hex FP is selected, numeric_limits::is_iec559, as expected, will
be false.


>For now I've changed the
>line to option b:
>
>static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"IEEE754"); 
>
>To rephrase my original question, do you use comments at
>all with static_assert if you are using 2017 C++?


Certainly I see little that a comment could add to the above
assertion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68089

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:29:42 -0500, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT), woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
>>> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
>>> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
>>> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
>>
>>I'm not sure what that last part means.
>
>
>It was asserted that no non-IEEE FP C++17 implementations are likely
>to ever exist, since such architectures largely no longer exist.
>
>I pointed out that the C++ compiler for IBM mainframes in the S/360
>line, while not yet C++17, supports both the traditional S/360 hex
>floating point format (which is decidedly *not* IEEE FP), as well as
>IEEE-style FP.  And that a C++17 version of that compiler is generally
>expected, and that it's expected that it will continue to support both
>FP formats.
>
>When hex FP is selected, numeric_limits::is_iec559, as expected, will
>be false.
>
>
>>For now I've changed the
>>line to option b:
>>
>>static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"IEEE754"); 
>>
>>To rephrase my original question, do you use comments at
>>all with static_assert if you are using 2017 C++?
>
>
>Certainly I see little that a comment could add to the above
>assertion.


OK, you meant should a *message* be used (not a comment) in the static
assertion (at least in C++17, where the message is now optional).
Obviously it depends on the context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68126

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 10:34:45 PM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:29:42 -0500, Robert Wessel
> <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT), woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
> >>> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
> >>> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
> >>> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
> >>
> >>I'm not sure what that last part means.
> >
> >
> >It was asserted that no non-IEEE FP C++17 implementations are likely
> >to ever exist, since such architectures largely no longer exist.
> >
> >I pointed out that the C++ compiler for IBM mainframes in the S/360
> >line, while not yet C++17, supports both the traditional S/360 hex
> >floating point format (which is decidedly *not* IEEE FP), as well as
> >IEEE-style FP.  And that a C++17 version of that compiler is generally
> >expected, and that it's expected that it will continue to support both
> >FP formats.
> >
> >When hex FP is selected, numeric_limits::is_iec559, as expected, will
> >be false.
> >
> >
> >>For now I've changed the
> >>line to option b:
> >>
> >>static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"IEEE754"); 
> >>
> >>To rephrase my original question, do you use comments at
> >>all with static_assert if you are using 2017 C++?
> >
> >
> >Certainly I see little that a comment could add to the above
> >assertion.
> 
> 
> OK, you meant should a *message* be used (not a comment) in the static
> assertion (at least in C++17, where the message is now optional).
> Obviously it depends on the context.

OK.  Thanks for the correction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68090

On 9/1/2019 7:21 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:48:07 +0200, Bonita Montero
> <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I have this line
>>> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");
>>
>> That's not necessary because no one will write a C++17-conformant
>> compiler for an ancient architecture without IEEE-754-floating-points
>> and is realistic to expect that there will be never any future CPU
>> that implements floats differently.
>> Its just one of those compulsive nerd-assessments.
> 
> 
> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
> supported on that compiler as you expect for both hex and binary FP.
> 

I want to see the DWCAS impl for z/OS. It should be able to handle the 
normal lock-free lifo:

Appendix 48 : A-48 in, Free Pool Manipulation:

https://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?aid=1&uid=isg26480faec85f44e2385256d5200627dee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68092

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 20:35:27 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/2019 7:21 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:48:07 +0200, Bonita Montero
>> <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I have this line
>>>> static_assert(::std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559,"Only IEEE754 supported");
>>>
>>> That's not necessary because no one will write a C++17-conformant
>>> compiler for an ancient architecture without IEEE-754-floating-points
>>> and is realistic to expect that there will be never any future CPU
>>> that implements floats differently.
>>> Its just one of those compulsive nerd-assessments.
>> 
>> 
>> While IBM has not yet released a C++17 version of XL C/C++ for z/OS,
>> they are widely expected to, and for it, like the C++11 version, to
>> support both IEEE and IBM S/360 hex style floats via a compiler
>> option.  In any event, numeric_limits::is_iec559 is C++11, and
>> supported on that compiler as you expect for both hex and binary FP.
>> 
>
>I want to see the DWCAS impl for z/OS. It should be able to handle the 
>normal lock-free lifo:
>
>Appendix 48 : A-48 in, Free Pool Manipulation:
>
>https://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?aid=1&uid=isg26480faec85f44e2385256d5200627dee


You need to find a newer PoOp.  That one is 15 years out of date.
Search for "SA22-7832-11".

I'm also not quite sure what you're asking.  The ISA implements CAS
and DWCAS (CSxx and CDxx instructions) as well as some other
compare-and-swap variations in both 32 and 64-bit sizes.  A number of
additional atomic operations exist under the Perform Locked Operation
instruction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web