Not to mention the fact that the higher optimization levels are not ever guaranteed to produce correct code...
The language standard spells out the rules which assumptions the compiler can make and which it cannot make. If the compiler makes only assumptions the standard allows it to make, the code violating those assumptions is already broken, and therefore the compiler cannot break it. If the compiler makes assumptions the standard doesn't allow it to make, the compiler is broken. Therefore except for bugs in the compiler, the higher optimization levels are guaranteed to produce correct code from correct source.
Perhaps the simplest such assumptions is that functions that take two input pointers do not encounter cases where those two pointers point to the same memory in a way that could break register usage optimizations.
If that happens in a case where the relevant standard doesn't allow this assumption, get the compiler fixed. If that happens in a case where the relevant standard allows this assumption, fix your code. In no case does the optimization break correct code.
If girls cannot code, a web site cannot look as if it were coded by a 14 year old girl, because then by definition a web site coded by a girl cannot exist and therefore cannot have a specific look that other web sites can be compared to. So his comment implies that at least 14 year old girls can code.
However 14 year old girls might have different ideas of what a web site should look like than either 14 year old boys, or older people of whatever gender.
And did you know that both plugins and GIMPLE from your previous quote are already in GCC?
But if you read the GCC mailing lists from the relevant time, you'll see that the gcc developers had a very hard time convincing RMS to give his OK to plugins (I didn't read the mails from the time when GIMPLE was introduced, so I can't comment on that).
As long as people are modifying GPL code, they're obliged to contribute those modifications back.
Wrong. I can modify gcc in whatever way I want without ever giving anyone the changed code. The only restriction is that if I decide to give anyone the modified code, I have to do so under the terms of the GPL. But as long as I keep it for myself (e.g. using a modified gcc to compile my own programs), nobody forces me to provide the modifications to anyone.
While I see why someone with inadequate knowledge might see that as troll, the first line quite adequately gives RMS's line of argumentation against well-defined interfaces to the internals. Yes, it's a case of ideology combined with paranoia causing technical inferiority. And it's a sad case, because it allows all those GPL haters to claim that it is the less restrictive license which allows LLVM/Clang to thrive, when in reality it's the superior design.
GCC is not just a C compiler, but a compiler collection (GCC = GNU Compiler Collection), which especially contains the C compiler gcc (= GNU C Compiler), and in addition the C++ compiler g++.
If you are driving somewhere where there's a reasonable danger to hit an object fixed to the ground (and face it, if there's a reasonable danger for the car in front of you to hit something, there's also a reasonable danger for you), you'd be batshit crazy to drive at such a speed.
You forget that the car in front of you cannot stop any more abruptly than you can. Note that at 130 km/h, the complete halting way is roughly 210 meters; I don't think it would even possible to keep that distance without sooner or later another car going in between.
Actually you don't keep exactly reaction time distance but some more because not all cars break exactly the same (nor are reaction times always the same), but then, "bumper to bumper" was almost certainly also not meant literally.
Yeah, and it will also stop driving as it doesn't believe there's road there. How would it handle parking at a college football game or a county fair where you're directed by a guy in an orange vest with a flash light pointing you to a made up spot in the middle of a grass field?
Why do you think they can't be switched to manual driving if needed? Airplanes have had autopilots for quite some time, and to my knowledge there's not a single one where you can't switch the autopilot off.
I don't see why it should not be possible to make an autonomous car which doesn't constantly tell Google/the NSA/some other organization its position. Such a car will probably not be made by Google. It may not be made in the US. But I'm sure if autonomous cars become commonplace, it will be made somewhere by someone.
The required distance between two cars is mainly for the reaction time. Assuming the reaction time for autonomous cars is close to zero, so can be the distance.
If I had this technology, my first stop would be the patent office
If I had tech that's that advanced, I'd stay clear of the patent office. I'd make sure that it remains secret and would let it work for me.
Also, you seem to have the illusion that a patent protects you from the government. If the government really wants it, it can simply declare it a matter of national security and bypass the patent office. Sorry, no money for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The language standard spells out the rules which assumptions the compiler can make and which it cannot make. If the compiler makes only assumptions the standard allows it to make, the code violating those assumptions is already broken, and therefore the compiler cannot break it. If the compiler makes assumptions the standard doesn't allow it to make, the compiler is broken. Therefore except for bugs in the compiler, the higher optimization levels are guaranteed to produce correct code from correct source.
If that happens in a case where the relevant standard doesn't allow this assumption, get the compiler fixed. If that happens in a case where the relevant standard allows this assumption, fix your code. In no case does the optimization break correct code.
8-)
Emoticons are specific sequences of ASCII characters. I'm pretty sure Slashdot supports that.
But let's try: :-) :-( ;-) 8-) :-D :-o Yep, seems to work.
But we indeed never went to the moon. We flew there.
Pirate ponies, of course.
If girls cannot code, a web site cannot look as if it were coded by a 14 year old girl, because then by definition a web site coded by a girl cannot exist and therefore cannot have a specific look that other web sites can be compared to. So his comment implies that at least 14 year old girls can code.
However 14 year old girls might have different ideas of what a web site should look like than either 14 year old boys, or older people of whatever gender.
Well, if it is undefined, there cannot be any information about it, right? ;-)
But if you read the GCC mailing lists from the relevant time, you'll see that the gcc developers had a very hard time convincing RMS to give his OK to plugins (I didn't read the mails from the time when GIMPLE was introduced, so I can't comment on that).
Wrong. I can modify gcc in whatever way I want without ever giving anyone the changed code. The only restriction is that if I decide to give anyone the modified code, I have to do so under the terms of the GPL. But as long as I keep it for myself (e.g. using a modified gcc to compile my own programs), nobody forces me to provide the modifications to anyone.
While I see why someone with inadequate knowledge might see that as troll, the first line quite adequately gives RMS's line of argumentation against well-defined interfaces to the internals. Yes, it's a case of ideology combined with paranoia causing technical inferiority. And it's a sad case, because it allows all those GPL haters to claim that it is the less restrictive license which allows LLVM/Clang to thrive, when in reality it's the superior design.
That should have been: "... not just a C++ compiler, ..."
Reminder to self: Preview!
GCC is not just a C compiler, but a compiler collection (GCC = GNU Compiler Collection), which especially contains the C compiler gcc (= GNU C Compiler), and in addition the C++ compiler g++.
Well, maybe the news is that he got told about it only in 2010. You don't really think the NSA hadn't tapped her before 2010, do you?
That's good, because you'll have to wait until next year anyway.
If you are driving somewhere where there's a reasonable danger to hit an object fixed to the ground (and face it, if there's a reasonable danger for the car in front of you to hit something, there's also a reasonable danger for you), you'd be batshit crazy to drive at such a speed.
Such cars will not be street legal.
Maybe in the US. But the world is a bit larger than the US. Fortunately.
The authentication token goes over the net for each access (or how else is Slashdot to know whether you are the logged-in person?)
You forget that the car in front of you cannot stop any more abruptly than you can. Note that at 130 km/h, the complete halting way is roughly 210 meters; I don't think it would even possible to keep that distance without sooner or later another car going in between.
Actually you don't keep exactly reaction time distance but some more because not all cars break exactly the same (nor are reaction times always the same), but then, "bumper to bumper" was almost certainly also not meant literally.
Trains are great for connections used by many people. They are not so good for going from your rural house to the next village five miles away.
Why do you think they can't be switched to manual driving if needed? Airplanes have had autopilots for quite some time, and to my knowledge there's not a single one where you can't switch the autopilot off.
I don't see why it should not be possible to make an autonomous car which doesn't constantly tell Google/the NSA/some other organization its position. Such a car will probably not be made by Google. It may not be made in the US. But I'm sure if autonomous cars become commonplace, it will be made somewhere by someone.
The required distance between two cars is mainly for the reaction time. Assuming the reaction time for autonomous cars is close to zero, so can be the distance.
A tax on self-driving cars? Because ... well, they'll find a reason.
In a case of disaster, you'll probably not have unlimited energy even if otherwise you'd have.
If I had tech that's that advanced, I'd stay clear of the patent office. I'd make sure that it remains secret and would let it work for me.
Also, you seem to have the illusion that a patent protects you from the government. If the government really wants it, it can simply declare it a matter of national security and bypass the patent office. Sorry, no money for you.