Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! (Score 1) 603

by TheRaven64 (#47549141) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

The reason that most extensions exist is that there is (or was) no way of implementing things that people want with standard C. Inline assembly is one example. All modern C compilers support it, but GCC and Microsoft's compilers use different syntax (most other compilers implement one or the other, sometimes both). Without it, you require that every time you want to use even a single instruction of platform-specific assembly code, you must write an entire function and call it.

Atomics were another big reason for extensions. Prior to C11, if you wanted atomic operations, you needed either assembly or non-standard compiler intrinsics. Efficient vector support is another one.

Comment: Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... (Score 1) 603

by TheRaven64 (#47549083) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"
While that's technically true, the Ada and Fortran front ends are both using DragonEgg, which is a GCC plugin that converts GIMPLE to LLVM IR. It doesn't work well with GCC 4.7 or newer, produces poor debug info, and is now largely unmaintained. There is a Flang project to produce an LLVM front end for Fortran, but it's very immature. The Ada Labs guys were looking at producing an LLVM front end for Ada, but I don't know that they got anywhere with it.

Comment: Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... (Score 1) 603

by TheRaven64 (#47549053) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"
Clang wasn't. Clang began in 2007, after Chris Lattner had moved to Apple. Before then, if you wanted to compile C code with LLVM, you had to use llvm-gcc, which was a horrible hack that took a forked version of GCC and translated one of the GCC IRs into LLVM IR before code generation.

Comment: Re:Laziness (Score 1) 126

The problem is worse on Android than on many other platforms because there are very few native shared libraries exposed to developer and there is no sensible mechanism for updating them all. If there's a vulnerability in a library that a load of developers use, then you need 100% of those developers to update the library and ship new versions of their apps to be secure. For most other systems, core libraries are part of a system update and so can be fixed centrally.

Comment: Re:Not surprised (Score 1) 126

I doubt Apple has such a patent. Both of these were features of Symbian at least since EKA2 (over 10 years ago) and, I think, earlier. Apple may have a patent on some particular way of exposing this functionality to the UI, but that's about the most that they could have without it being shot down in court in 10 seconds (prior art that's in the form of a phone OS that millions of people owned is hard to refute).

Comment: Re:umm duh? (Score 1) 175

by TheRaven64 (#47548225) Attached to: Dropbox Head Responds To Snowden Claims About Privacy
Everything you ask for exists. The reason that Google, Microsoft, and Dropbox don't use them is that their entire business model depends on differentiation. If you could connect to their services with any third-party client that also worked with a server that you set up yourself and with their competitors' services, then their hold on the market becomes very tenuous. You're searching for technical solutions to business problems.

Comment: Re:Slippery Slope (Score 1) 168

If Google is censoring their results, they could do so no just on the basis of which version of Google receives the request, but on the basis of the requesting IP address.

Google blocks it by domain. Domain is specific to country by registrar. If someone in the UK goes to google.com instead of google.co.uk, it's up to the UK to dick with their ISP and DNS results to force redirect them into the UK legal sandbox where the content is controlled.

You know, just like China.

Legally forcing a commercial entity to act as part of your own implementation of "The Great Firewall of China" is not the same thing as not being censorious dicks yourself. An unfunded mandate to force someone to do your dirty work for you does not make it any less your dirty work.

Comment: Re:what the hell are you doing on your cellphone (Score 1) 240

by tlambert (#47544473) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

"why haven't cellular data providers figured out a way to offer more than 5 GB per month at a reasonable price in the past decade".

They have. The FCC has. They need much more of the spectrum to do it which means shutting off broadcast TV which no one uses.

Funny. The way NTT solved the problem a quarter of a century ago was to increase cell density to decrease per cell load. They don't need more spectrum.

Comment: Re:what the hell are you doing on your cellphone (Score 1) 240

by tlambert (#47544463) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

With cell towers your individual bandwidth is a function of how many people are using that tower. If you aren't getting enough you add towers, simple as that. It just costs money and the cell companies find it's more profitable to throttle than upgrade their network. Throttling your internet/cellphone is free, so long as everyone does it to prevent competition.

This.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...