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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#68093

On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> 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.
> 

Right. So C++11 on the zArch can support 64-bit double width 
compare-and-swap atomics with 32 bit words. And 128 DWCAS with 64 bit 
words, right?

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

#68096

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:12:08 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>
>Right. So C++11 on the zArch can support 64-bit double width 
>compare-and-swap atomics with 32 bit words. And 128 DWCAS with 64 bit 
>words, right?


Yes.  CDSG does a compare and swap on a 128-bit value stored in a pair
of (64-bit) registers with a quadword in memory.

Compare and Swap and Store is something of enhancement, and allows for
the miscompared value to update another structure in the same atomic
operation.

Perform Locked Operation can do a variety of atomic operation
including DCAS, and CAS with multiple updates.

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

#68101

On 9/1/2019 10:09 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:12:08 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Right. So C++11 on the zArch can support 64-bit double width
>> compare-and-swap atomics with 32 bit words. And 128 DWCAS with 64 bit
>> words, right?
> 
> 
> Yes.  CDSG does a compare and swap on a 128-bit value stored in a pair
> of (64-bit) registers with a quadword in memory.
> 
> Compare and Swap and Store is something of enhancement, and allows for
> the miscompared value to update another structure in the same atomic
> operation.
> 
> Perform Locked Operation can do a variety of atomic operation
> including DCAS, and CAS with multiple updates.
> 

Ohhh, yeah. The PLO instruction is very interesting indeed!

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

#68224

On 9/1/2019 10:09 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:12:08 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Right. So C++11 on the zArch can support 64-bit double width
>> compare-and-swap atomics with 32 bit words. And 128 DWCAS with 64 bit
>> words, right?
> 
> 
> Yes.  CDSG does a compare and swap on a 128-bit value stored in a pair
> of (64-bit) registers with a quadword in memory.

Ohhhh nice! Was not aware of the CDSG. Is it like CMPXCHG16B on an x64 
system, sounds identical? Well, what about the hyper strange:

cmp8xchg16 on the Itanium/ Itanic? Wow. This is a odd ball...


> 
> Compare and Swap and Store is something of enhancement, and allows for
> the miscompared value to update another structure in the same atomic
> operation.
> 
> Perform Locked Operation can do a variety of atomic operation
> including DCAS, and CAS with multiple updates.
> 

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

#68094

On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> 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".

Afaict, this is still there in appendix A on the most recent version.

> 
> 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]

#68099

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:13:02 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 20:35:27 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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".
>
>Afaict, this is still there in appendix A on the most recent version.


It is, although that's not saying much - a non-trivial portion of the
content of Appendix A has been only minimally changed since 1964.
Although not the examples for CS/CDS, those only date back to S/370.

See page 122 of:

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/princOps/A22-6821-0_360PrincOps.pdf

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

#68102

On 9/1/2019 10:20 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:13:02 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/1/2019 8:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 20:35:27 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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".
>>
>> Afaict, this is still there in appendix A on the most recent version.
> 
> 
> It is, although that's not saying much - a non-trivial portion of the
> content of Appendix A has been only minimally changed since 1964.
> Although not the examples for CS/CDS, those only date back to S/370.

The lock-free lifo is there to stay.


> 
> See page 122 of:
> 
> http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/princOps/A22-6821-0_360PrincOps.pdf
> 

Will do.

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

#68097

> I want to see the DWCAS impl for z/OS.
> ...

Why? Do you have bought such a system?

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

#68103

On 9/1/2019 10:14 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> I want to see the DWCAS impl for z/OS.
>> ...
> 
> Why? Do you have bought such a system?

No. Just want to see the generated asm. Lock-Free and Appendix A have 
been around for a long time. Btw, did you know that CAS is actually the 
initials for the person who invented it?

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

#68104

> No. Just want to see the generated asm. Lock-Free
> and Appendix A have  been around for a long time.

Those systems aren't really relevant because they're
sold in homeopathic amounts.

> A have  been around for a long time. Btw, did you know that
> CAS is actually the initials for the person who invented it?

Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
reference on that where only his first name is remembered.

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

#68105

On 9/1/2019 10:55 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> No. Just want to see the generated asm. Lock-Free
>> and Appendix A have  been around for a long time.
> 
> Those systems aren't really relevant because they're
> sold in homeopathic amounts.
> 
>> A have  been around for a long time. Btw, did you know that
>> CAS is actually the initials for the person who invented it?
> 
> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.

Stack Overflow wrt a Lock-Free Lifo? How did you manage to get that?

Ohhh... The C in CAS stands for Charlie.

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

#68108

>> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
>> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.

> Stack Overflow wrt a Lock-Free Lifo? How did you manage to get that?

https://bit.ly/2kinTqE

> Ohhh... The C in CAS stands for Charlie.

As soon as I can find his full name with fits so C.A.S.
and I can find something referencing him as a researcher
or whatever I don't belive this.

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

#68109

On 9/1/2019 11:20 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
>>> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.
> 
>> Stack Overflow wrt a Lock-Free Lifo? How did you manage to get that?
> 
> https://bit.ly/2kinTqE
> 
>> Ohhh... The C in CAS stands for Charlie.
> 
> As soon as I can find his full name with fits so C.A.S.
> and I can find something referencing him as a researcher
> or whatever I don't belive this.

  Ask over on comp.arch. You might be lucky enough to talk to another 
IBM guy that knew him.

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

#68110

On 9/1/2019 11:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 11:20 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
>>>> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.
>>
>>> Stack Overflow wrt a Lock-Free Lifo? How did you manage to get that?
>>
>> https://bit.ly/2kinTqE
>>
>>> Ohhh... The C in CAS stands for Charlie.
>>
>> As soon as I can find his full name with fits so C.A.S.
>> and I can find something referencing him as a researcher
>> or whatever I don't belive this.
> 
>   Ask over on comp.arch. You might be lucky enough to talk to another 
> IBM guy that knew him.


Think of Anne & Lynn Wheeler.... ;^)

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

#68111

On 9/1/2019 11:25 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 11:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/1/2019 11:20 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
>>>>> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.
>>>
>>>> Stack Overflow wrt a Lock-Free Lifo? How did you manage to get that?
>>>
>>> https://bit.ly/2kinTqE
>>>
>>>> Ohhh... The C in CAS stands for Charlie.
>>>
>>> As soon as I can find his full name with fits so C.A.S.
>>> and I can find something referencing him as a researcher
>>> or whatever I don't belive this.
>>
>>   Ask over on comp.arch. You might be lucky enough to talk to another 
>> IBM guy that knew him.
> 
> 
> Think of Anne & Lynn Wheeler.... ;^)


read all...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/comp.arch/JkcTGC9X3lo/M4Vo_cXKEwAJ

Still, create a new post over on comp.arch

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

#68112

>> Think of Anne & Lynn Wheeler.... ;^)

> read all...
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/comp.arch/JkcTGC9X3lo/M4Vo_cXKEwAJ 
> Still, create a new post over on comp.arch

I further don't believe this; check this: https://bit.ly/2lprsvC
You won't find his full name this. I'm pretty sure that his full
name would be known you would easily google it; but you can't.

You have a very impulsive kind of thinking or you are very
impulsive at at all according to your posting-behaviour.

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

#68115

On 9/1/2019 11:33 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Think of Anne & Lynn Wheeler.... ;^)
> 
>> read all...
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/comp.arch/JkcTGC9X3lo/M4Vo_cXKEwAJ 
>> Still, create a new post over on comp.arch
> 
> I further don't believe this; check this: https://bit.ly/2lprsvC
> You won't find his full name this. I'm pretty sure that his full
> name would be known you would easily google it; but you can't.
> 
> You have a very impulsive kind of thinking or you are very
> impulsive at at all according to your posting-behaviour.

Post over on comp.arch. Anne & Lynn Wheeler might still be watching it.

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

#68116

>> You have a very impulsive kind of thinking or you are very
>> impulsive at at all according to your posting-behaviour.

> Post over on comp.arch. Anne & Lynn Wheeler might still be watching it.

That's not necessary.
If there would be a definite name you could easily google it.
-- 
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/

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

#68117

On 9/2/2019 12:23 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You have a very impulsive kind of thinking or you are very
>>> impulsive at at all according to your posting-behaviour.
> 
>> Post over on comp.arch. Anne & Lynn Wheeler might still be watching it.
> 
> That's not necessary.
> If there would be a definite name you could easily google it.

I cannot do it.

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

#68106

On 9/1/2019 10:55 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> No. Just want to see the generated asm. Lock-Free
>> and Appendix A have  been around for a long time.
> 
> Those systems aren't really relevant because they're
> sold in homeopathic amounts.
> 
>> A have  been around for a long time. Btw, did you know that
>> CAS is actually the initials for the person who invented it?
> 
> Thiy might be a myth. I can only get a single Stack Overflow
> reference on that where only his first name is remembered.

Myth!? No. Its real.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web