Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1346181
| From | Toon Moene <toon@moene.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition |
| Date | 2016-02-29 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r7DHR-8rB-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <r6Qxs-6i3-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <r6Wjw-1MZ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <r6Wjw-1MZ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r74TL-80Z-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r7ceB-57l-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands |
On 02/28/2016 05:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yeah, let's just say that the original C designers were > better at their job than a gaggle of standards people who were making > bad crap up to make some Fortran-style programs go faster. The original C designers were defining a language that would make it easy to write operating systems in (and not having to rely on assembler). I misled the quote where they said they first tried Fortran (and concluded it didn't fit their purpose). BTW, Fortran was designed around floating point arithmetic (and its non-relation to the mathematical concept of the field of the reals). It used integers only for counting and indexing arrays, so it had no purpose for "signed integers that overflowed". Therefore, to the Fortran standard, this was "undefined". It was literally "undefined" - as it was not described by the standard's text. -- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-27 18:10 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-28 00:20 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> - 2016-02-28 09:30 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-28 17:20 +0100
Re: [llvm-dev] [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition cbergstrom@pathscale.com - 2016-02-28 18:00 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> - 2016-02-29 18:40 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-29 19:00 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence@Crowl.org> - 2016-02-29 20:40 +0100
Re: [llvm-dev] [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com> - 2016-02-29 22:20 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Toon Moene <toon@moene.org> - 2016-02-29 22:40 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> - 2016-02-29 19:20 +0100
Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-03-01 02:30 +0100
csiph-web