gpderetta

At the very least that would warrant an explicit std::abort() or std::unreachable() at the end (or the C equivalent).

one could already add loads off a volatile and portably prevent the loop from being optimized. But there was already a lot of existing embedded code that had this sort of loop, (and more will be written as it is an existing idiom) which the committee wanted to un-break.

As the only observable behaviour of this_thread::yield is forward progress, because of the as-if rule, the compiler doesn't actually need to replace the loop, when running on a runtime that guarantees preemption. That's the case when std::threads are backed by kernel threads. On a M:N implementation, then yes, a yield would need to be added, but that would be desirable.

Interestingly, posix realtime FIFO scheduling doesn't preempt even on kernel thread based implementations, so one reading of the standard would require yield on this case. But that can actually be potentially catastrophic as FIFO scheduling is expected to be deterministic. But realtime scheduling is already beyond the standard: I doubt gcc and clang will do the transformation by default.

In practice the equivalence is necessary to make some obscure corner of the memory model work and prevent some undesirable optimizations; I expect that in practice the compilers, if they implement this at all, will provide an opt-in flag, but they will optimize as-if the call was there.

right, but the issue was that if an application was linked with a library that happened to link with a fast-math shared library, it would unknowingly bring along the crt code. Now the only way to get it is to use the fast-math flag when linking the final binary, which at least is an explicit request.

IEEE 754 defines bit exact results for a lot of FP operations, including denormals.

larger SIMD ALUs, which also have been around for longer?

IIRC that has been since split out of the flag and need to be asked for separately at link time.

Fujitsu has a long history of designing their own micro but using a standard ISA for HPC. Used to be SPARC, now it is ARM. IIRC Fujitsu were the main architects behind the SVE ARM extension.

Things get complicated when a lambda that capture by reference is capturing things that are not on a single stack frame (or a stack frame at all). Then you have references to references. You could rely on the optimizer, but the capture has ABI implications.

It is undemocratic when the democratically elected people wants to subvert the democratic order. Most (but not all!) democratic countries have constitutions that actually limit the power of elected people exactly for this reason. Especially those countries that ended up democratically electing dictators on the eve of WWII have constitutions that severely limit the power of the executive.

C++11/C11 memory model and atomics provide a more well funded model to interact with signal handler. I'm not sure if POSIX fully embraced it, but it will work well in practice.

Didn't the international agreements require ratification from legislative?

>You cannot pass a lambda expression to a function that expects a function pointer (e.g. bool(*)(int) in this example)

To be pedantic, you can: as long as the lambda doesn't close over any local variable, the object will decay to a function pointer.

realistically, it will be used to beam ads to your brain.

that replaces your monitor.

FIA is getting there as well.

Are you implying that a single CPU system can't be concurrent?

A reminder that databases (as an example) provide all three without issues (at the cost of complexity in the implementation of course).

of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).

Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.

how's that different from any other medical procedure?

It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the south. So in practice access to it is not always that easy.

Agree. Unscientifically, I don't think current LLM are conscious because I don't think they have enough awareness of their own thoughts (I, again unscientifically don't believe that the context window is enough).

Still, tthey are the stuff of sci-fi: it is the first time in recorded history that we can communicate with language with something that is not human! The consciousness "problem" is just a distraction.

Do androids dream of electric sheep indeed.

"90% of everything is crap".

Although I guess we should probably update it to "99% of everything is slop.

damage control in full swing already?

that's all right, Lord Buckethead has now officially endorsed Count Binface for the by-election: https://xcancel.com/DavidHughesTwit/status/20759264658461409...

I guess technically he never said it wasn't for security. Apparently the 5m was an unconditional gift for campaigning for brexit, and how he had spent the money was “not the public’s business”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c072prlxlddo

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-latest...

According to https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real, this is a 1 in 7000 years event (i.e. 3.5 sigmas).

Are we really still going with the "personal security" story? I thought he had pivoted a couple of times to other, not necessarily more credible, stories.

> This is the country that voted to name a research vessel Boaty McBoatFace

And "Killing in the Name" as Christmas song of '09, to spite the usual X-factor shoo-in.

There is a chance that more entertainment is yet to come from Clacton.