Slashdot Mirror
SGI to Scale Linux Across 1024 CPUs
im333mfg writes "ComputerWorld has an article up about an upcoming SGI Machine, being built for the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, "that will run a single Linux operating system image across 1,024 Intel Corp. Itanium 2 processors and 3TB of shared memory.""
I wouldn't trust their data. I am just finishing up a project for a Pocket PC, which happens to run Windows CE. I use Microsoft Embedded Visual C++ as the compiler for the project, and at one point I was looking into using C++ style exceptions to make my code a bit cleaner. In the help file included with Embedded Visual C++, Microsoft claims that C++ syle exceptions are supported, and they give examples of how to do it. These claims are also available online here , and where they explain how to use C++ or structured style exception handling, they recommend using C++ style exceptions for portability. However, when I tried to compile my application, I first got the warning that I needed to compile with a flag to enable the stack unwinding semantics. So I did that, and tried to recompile, but this time it failed in the linking stage with an error like "error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "const type_info::`vftable'" (??_7type_info@@6B@)". After hours and hours of trying to figure out if I had missed a command line option for the linker or forgot to #include something, I stumbled across an online discussion where someone else was having the same problems. Someone else responded with an answer, pointing to a Knowledge Base article, which said that C++ style exceptions are NOT supported in Embedded Visual C++, and that the functionality "is by design."
As you may guess, this is very frustrating, to be told in all documentation that something is supported, and to have the compiler act like it's supported, but for it to not be supported. It also goes to show that you cannot trust those bastards over at Microsoft when they say that something is supported. Oh, yeah, and you may notice that the invalid documentation has been up since 2000, and the KB article was put up in 2003. This means that the invalid documentation has been up for 4 years now, and only a year ago do they admit that it's not supported (even though it's STILL in the documentation for the product that it IS supported).
I am clearly fatter than you.