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


Groups > comp.theory > #143249

Re: Malicious Computer Architecture

From Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c, comp.lang.lisp, comp.theory, comp.emacs.xemacs
Subject Re: Malicious Computer Architecture
Date 2026-08-06 21:55 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <20260806143922.203@kylheku.com> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <114pno3$16g53$1@dont-email.me> <114pqg5$17lne$1@dont-email.me> <5T_bS.71191$4Fu9.56234@fx05.ams4> <27248.58134.739884.512819@parhasard.net> <blocS.832$Be5.329@fx13.ams4>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 2026-08-04, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
> Yes, I remember that.  I believe I came across a FAQ, probably comp.os.
> msdos.programmer, that said because comp.lang.c was full of standard
> thumping trolls, a lot of regular programming, even Win32 got discussed
> there.  Yes, I'll quote.

I don't believe that only standard C should be discussed in comp.lang.c.
There is room for dialects. E.g. GNU C is C.

Once we are in the weeds of a platform specific kernel function that can
do anything whatsoever, the discussion of what it does doesn't relate
to C. You can call it out of assembly language or Fortran; it doesn't
matter.

Standard thumping and standard thumpers are useful, because it is
usually good to be informed about whether something we are doing in
the code is required to work, by the standard, or not. (If not, then
by what: by what requirements, or else theory of operation, is it
assured that the code works as believed.)

Sometimes standard thumpers can point out a standard-conforming way
of doing something that has no disadvantages, or at least few
disadvantages, compared to the nonstandard way being presented.

C is a very unsafe language; a program that compiles with silence at the
highest diagnostic level of your compiler of choice could have serious
flaws.

The standard is the primary (though not the only) source that informs
the scrutiny of C programs for undiagnosed/undiagnosable problems.

> So my take on it, is that the standard thumping trolls in comp.lang.c
> were already a problem in the 90s.  They just didn't know it, didn't
> care, and nobody challenged them about it.  Until now.

On the contrary, standard-thumping in comp.lang.c has been regularly
challenged for decades by numerous visitors; everyone who tried it so
far bounced off, and came down with an unpleasant bump. :)

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-03 19:23 +0800
  Re: Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-03 14:29 +0000
    Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-03 14:26 -0300
  Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Was: Malicious Computer Architecture) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:10 +0200
    But how can you deploy. when its ROM? (Was: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:15 +0200
      GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries (Was: But how can you deploy. when its ROM?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-07 14:37 +0200
        What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip] (Re: GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-07 18:07 +0200
          Cristallina: Thank you for the Beam (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 21:22 +0200
            Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-18 16:26 +0200
              How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-18 16:50 +0200
                Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:24 +0800
              Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:21 +0800
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-18 21:13 +0100
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-18 22:49 +0000
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 08:32 +0800
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Anthk GM <anthk@disroot.org> - 2026-09-15 17:10 +0000
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-15 18:08 +0000
                You hear some noises in the distance (Was: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-15 20:21 +0200
                Re: You hear some noises in the distance (Was: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-15 20:05 +0000
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-08-21 02:08 -0400
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:25 +0800
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-08-21 16:28 -0400
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 08:27 +0800
              William A. Howard solved all his 99 problems (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-23 01:48 +0200
          The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster [GPU Channels] (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-11 16:27 +0200
            The luminaries of duct-tape engineering [Sweeney and Torvald] (Was: The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster [GPU Channels]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-11 16:51 +0200
  Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-03 19:51 +0100
    Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 00:22 +0800
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-08-04 19:10 +0100
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-08-06 21:55 +0000
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-07 06:31 +0800
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-06 23:01 +0100
    Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-08-04 18:13 +0000
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 03:48 +0800
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-08-04 22:01 +0000
          Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 06:25 +0800
  A Case for Impurity: The Applied Pi Calculus (Re: Malicious Computer Architecture) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-04 14:58 +0200
    The Sandcastle of Paul Taraus Interactors (Re: A Case for Impurity: The Applied Pi Calculus) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-04 15:10 +0200

csiph-web