(Whether Hungarian qualifies as Finno-Ugric is up for debate, but Hungarian most definitely has determinate and indeterminate articles.)
27 karma · joined February 14, 2026
Native English speakers living for a decade or more in the Czech Republic (and picking up Czech in the process) may experience "retroactive article confusion", they may start to drop articles while speaking their mother tongue English.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true, when the parent process is multi-threaded. In the child process, only one thread exists (the thread returning from fork()), but the memory is an exact copy of the parent's. As a result, the child may inherit locks (resident in memory) that are in acquired state, but have no owner threads -- the threads that are responsible for eventually releasing those locks in the child's copy of the process memory do not exist in the child. If the single thread in the child process (returning from fork()) attempts to take such a lock (before exec), it deadlocks. This is why POSIX says that only async-signal-safe functions may be called in a child process, between fork and exec. And then, for example, "malloc" is not such a function (at least per POSIX), so the fork-to-exec environment in the child process is an extremely uncomfortable one. You've got to preallocate everything in the parent, can't report errors to stderr, etc.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/f...
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/V...
The fork(2) Linux manual page spells out the sam restriction.
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fork.2.html
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html
"pthread_atfork" exists, but is effectively unusable.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/p...
> Make easy things easy. Make hard things doable.
is generally unachievable. Instead, pick one:
- easy things easy, hard things impossible
- easy things tedious, hard things possible
(Unless you want to maintain two sets of interfaces in parallel.)
It's not that bad actually; not "always". The only nontrivial case is when, as a part of the usual arithmetic conversions, you (perhaps unwittingly) convert a signed integer type to an unsigned integer type [*], and the original value was negative.
[*] This can happen in two cases (paraphrasing the standard):
- if the operand that has unsigned integer type has rank greater than or equal to the rank of the signed integer type of the other operand,
- if the operand that has signed integer type has rank greater than or equal to the rank of the unsigned integer type of the other operand, but the signed integer type cannot represent all values of the unsigned integer type.
Examples: (a) "unsigned int" vs. "signed int"; (b) "long signed int" vs. "unsigned int" in a POSIX ILP32 programming environment. Under (a), you get conversion to "unsigned int"; under (b), you get conversion (for both operands) to "long unsigned int".
Section "3.2 Conversions | 3.2.1 Arithmetic operands | 3.2.1.1 Characters, and integers" in the C89 Rationale <https://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/C89Rationale.pdf> is worth reading. (An updated version of the same section is included in the C99 Rationale <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C99RationaleV5.1...> under 6.3.1.1.)
It deals precisely with the problem highlighted in the blog post. I'll quote just the beginning and the end:
> Since the publication of K&R, a serious divergence has occurred among implementations of C in the evolution of integral promotion rules. Implementations fall into two major camps, which may be characterized as unsigned preserving and value preserving. [...]
> The unsigned preserving rules greatly increase the number of situations where unsigned int confronts signed int to yield a questionably signed result, whereas the value preserving rules minimize such confrontations. Thus, the value preserving rules were considered to be safer for the novice, or unwary, programmer. After much discussion, the Committee decided in favor of value preserving rules, despite the fact that the UNIX C compilers had evolved in the direction of unsigned preserving.
> QUIET CHANGE -- A program that depends upon unsigned preserving arithmetic conversions will behave differently, probably without complaint. This is considered the most serious semantic change made by the Committee to a widespread current practice.
There is absolutely no "sign extension" in the C standard (go ahead, search it). "Sign extension" is a feature of some assembly instructions on some architectures, but C has nothing to do with it.
Citing integer promotion from the standard is justified, but it's just one part (perhaps even the smaller part) of the picture. The crucial bit is not quoted in the article: the specification of "Bitwise shift operators". Namely
> The integer promotions are performed on each of the operands. The type of the result is that of the promoted left operand. [...]
> The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the result is E1×2^E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value representable in the result type. If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value, and E1×2^E2 is representable in the result type, then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
What happens here is that "base2" (of type uint8_t, which is "unsigned char" in this environment) gets promoted to "int", and then left-shifted by 24 bits. You get undefined behavior because, while "base2" (after promotion) has a signed type ("int") and nonnegative value, E1×2^E2 (i.e., base2 × 2^24) is NOT representable in the result type ("int").
What happens during the conversion to "uint64_t" afterwards is irrelevant; even the particulars of the sign bit of "int", and how you end up with a negative "int" from the shift, are irrelevant; you got your UB right inside the invalid left-shift. How said UB happens to materialize on this particular C implementation may perhaps be explained in terms of sign extension of the underlying ISA -- but do that separately; be absolutely clear about what is what.
The article fails to mention the root cause (violating the rules for the bitwise left-shift operator) and fails to name the key consequence (undefined behavior); instead, it leads with not-a-thing ("sign-extension bug in C"). I'm displeased.
BTW this bug (invalid left shift of a signed integer) is common, sadly.