Search
56 results for “DanielaKEngert”
-
@DanielaKEngert the intent was to help you setup and run ArchLinux on your windows box.
Then setting up latest build of gcc is a breeze.
Irrespective of gcc version, the meta-bug for all module issue(s) is
-
@DanielaKEngert 2022-03-03 gcc build for ArchLinux available.
Here is the direct link
https://sourceforge.net/projects/softwarehub/files/gcc/gcc.tar.xz/downloadThis corresponds to 'main' branch, tracking upto Richard Biener's commit 0132acc03cada2c3b47c48a205e821563153fc80
-
how about installing ArchLinux or Debian as the OS on your hardware ?
How about running each Windows version in a Qemu or a Virtualbox instance ?
You can have as many versions as you want and for all the time you saved bake some Spekulatius or Lebkuchen !
-
@DanielaKEngert good morning 😀
found this C++26 paper by Ville Voutilainen
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0592r5.html
#cplusplus
#cpp
#isocpp
#isocplusplus
#cpp23
#isocpp23
#isocplusplus23 -
@DanielaKEngert good morning 😀
found this C++26 paper by Ville Voutilainen
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0592r5.html
#cplusplus
#cpp
#isocpp
#isocplusplus
#cpp23
#isocpp23
#isocplusplus23 -
@DanielaKEngert good morning 😀
found this C++26 paper by Ville Voutilainen
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0592r5.html
#cplusplus
#cpp
#isocpp
#isocplusplus
#cpp23
#isocpp23
#isocplusplus23 -
@DanielaKEngert good morning 😀
found this C++26 paper by Ville Voutilainen
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0592r5.html
#cplusplus
#cpp
#isocpp
#isocplusplus
#cpp23
#isocpp23
#isocplusplus23 -
@DanielaKEngert good morning 😀
found this C++26 paper by Ville Voutilainen
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0592r5.html
#cplusplus
#cpp
#isocpp
#isocplusplus
#cpp23
#isocpp23
#isocplusplus23 -
@sbi @DanielaKEngert @sushee @sickeroni I do not think that #Basic and #Fortran77 really helped.
-
So, You Want to Use C++ Modules … Cross-Platform? – by @DanielaKEngert – C++ on Sea 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJTEUFRslbI
#clang #cpp #cppmodules #gcc #MSBuild #programming -
constexprall the things! Since the evaluation of a constant expression never results in an erroneous behavior (EB, C++26)! (But useconstexprsince C++11)This was mentioned by many at the conference, not to forget: @DanielaKEngert, Mikhail Svetkin, and others.
@meetingcpp #cpp #cpp26 #cpp11 #meetingcpp #dev #undefined_behavior #ub #erroneous_behavior #eb
-
constexprall the things! Since the evaluation of a constant expression never results in an erroneous behavior (EB, C++26)! (But useconstexprsince C++11)This was mentioned by many at the conference, not to forget: @DanielaKEngert, Mikhail Svetkin, and others.
@meetingcpp #cpp #cpp26 #cpp11 #meetingcpp #dev #undefined_behavior #ub #erroneous_behavior #eb
-
constexprall the things! Since the evaluation of a constant expression never results in an erroneous behavior (EB, C++26)! (But useconstexprsince C++11)This was mentioned by many at the conference, not to forget: @DanielaKEngert, Mikhail Svetkin, and others.
@meetingcpp #cpp #cpp26 #cpp11 #meetingcpp #dev #undefined_behavior #ub #erroneous_behavior #eb
-
constexprall the things! Since the evaluation of a constant expression never results in an erroneous behavior (EB, C++26)! (But useconstexprsince C++11)This was mentioned by many at the conference, not to forget: @DanielaKEngert, Mikhail Svetkin, and others.
@meetingcpp #cpp #cpp26 #cpp11 #meetingcpp #dev #undefined_behavior #ub #erroneous_behavior #eb
-
constexprall the things! Since the evaluation of a constant expression never results in an erroneous behavior (EB, C++26)! (But useconstexprsince C++11)This was mentioned by many at the conference, not to forget: @DanielaKEngert, Mikhail Svetkin, and others.
@meetingcpp #cpp #cpp26 #cpp11 #meetingcpp #dev #undefined_behavior #ub #erroneous_behavior #eb
-
RE: https://social.heise.de/@heiseonline/116579236611912317
Unsere "Regierung" sollte endlich mal *für* die Interessen der Mehrheit der Bevölkerung handeln, anstatt irgendwelchen Quatsch zu ventilieren.
-
RE: https://follow.ethanmarcotte.com/@beep/116574876011931316
Wow, what a statement!
Quote from the article :
"... it is not a technology problem. It is a leadership problem. AI does not make bad executives worse. It gives them a faster way to prove they are bad."
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@zadjii/116518329631639405
One of the measurements that I've taken for my latest talk:
The *entire* API (i.e. header files) of Asio, Boost, Ceral, Eigen, Qt, Xerces, plus MS MFC, MS STL, MS Windows SDK, MS UCRT
* compiled as #include, or loaded from PCH: 2 GB
* compiled as modules (one for each library) and imported: 88 MB
-
People need to be aware that the linked blog post is about a fictional world, which may or - more likely - may not become reality.
To have an impact, a fleshed out proposal with such changes to the C++ standard needs to show up in the committee to be discussed and voted on there. From what I can see so far, I'd like to see much better reasoning to support such a change.
If ever, the proposed syntax may become a thing in the next decade. Until then, there are other options to achive the desired behaviour.
-
Wat? The .cpp file you mention is nothing but a convenience wrapper for the boatload of .ipp files with the actual implementation - either #included into each consumer TU if you configure Asio as a traditional header-only library, or otherwise precompiled into an object archive. It's totally up to you.
Compilers give a damn to the extensions of the files that contain pieces of the source text. The only thing that counts is their usage.
-
What you call "usually header-only" is actually a guarantee to *maximize* build times.
There is nothing wrong with #including the .cpp with the non-public implementation *into the private module fragment* ‼️
Au contraire, mon ami: by that, you pre-build *both* the interface and the implementation, thereby *minimizing* build times. That's even better than just pre-building the implementation as seen in traditional builds.This is in essence the main topic of this year's talks of mine (first given at 'using std::cpp 2026' three weeks ago)!
-
In der SW-Entwicklung sprechen wir oft von "technischen Schulden".
Sollten wir diese nicht eher als "technische Schäden" bezeichnen?
"Schäden" passieren, wenn wir eine Fähigkeit nicht beherrschen, oder wenn wir unaufmerksam sind, oder wenn uns etwas egal ist. Die Folgen sind zumeist überraschend, unvorhersehbar, und nicht kalkulierbar.
"Schulden" sind zumeist das Ergebnis einer bewußten Entscheidung nach trefflicher Überlegung, mit einem Plan zur Rückzahlung.
------
In software development, we often talk about ‘technical debt’.
Shouldn’t we rather call this ‘technical damage’?
‘Damage’ occurs when we lack the necessary skills, or when we are inattentive, or when we simply don’t care. The consequences are usually unexpected, unpredictable, and impossible to quantify.
‘Debt’ is usually the result of a conscious decision made after careful consideration, with a plan for repayment.
-
CW: "colourful language" ahead
This pile of shit called CMake and package managers is happening again.
Back from the last ISO C++ meeting in Croydon where we voted on the appetite for inclusion of mp-units into the next standard, I tried to get even the *chance* to compile it using the recommended Conan, CMake, and other dependencies.
And failed spectacularly again:
* at some point, the current VS2026 compiler is spat out ("what even is this thing" coming from the attempt to deal with Catch2.Ok, switch off testing for now.
* next some complaints about "avg_speed-headers" missing some support from CMake. What the heck?
The fact that compiler options seem incomplete for full C++23 conformance is certainly only minor, right?
To me, this sounds like building with VS is seriously lacking (in particular CMake).
Therefore I will do what I usually do: move CMakeLists.txt over to a build system, that works for years now, and retain only the source tree.
-
CW: "colourful language" ahead
This pile of shit called CMake and package managers is happening again.
Back from the last ISO C++ meeting in Croydon where we voted on the appetite for inclusion of mp-units into the next standard, I tried to get even the *chance* to compile it using the recommended Conan, CMake, and other dependencies.
And failed spectacularly again:
* at some point, the current VS2026 compiler is spat out ("what even is this thing" coming from the attempt to deal with Catch2.Ok, switch off testing for now.
* next some complaints about "avg_speed-headers" missing some support from CMake. What the heck?
The fact that compiler options seem incomplete for full C++23 conformance is certainly only minor, right?
To me, this sounds like building with VS is seriously lacking (in particular CMake).
Therefore I will do what I usually do: move CMakeLists.txt over to a build system, that works for years now, and retain only the source tree.
-
CW: "colourful language" ahead
This pile of shit called CMake and package managers is happening again.
Back from the last ISO C++ meeting in Croydon where we voted on the appetite for inclusion of mp-units into the next standard, I tried to get even the *chance* to compile it using the recommended Conan, CMake, and other dependencies.
And failed spectacularly again:
* at some point, the current VS2026 compiler is spat out ("what even is this thing" coming from the attempt to deal with Catch2.Ok, switch off testing for now.
* next some complaints about "avg_speed-headers" missing some support from CMake. What the heck?
The fact that compiler options seem incomplete for full C++23 conformance is certainly only minor, right?
To me, this sounds like building with VS is seriously lacking (in particular CMake).
Therefore I will do what I usually do: move CMakeLists.txt over to a build system, that works for years now, and retain only the source tree.
-
CW: "colourful language" ahead
This pile of shit called CMake and package managers is happening again.
Back from the last ISO C++ meeting in Croydon where we voted on the appetite for inclusion of mp-units into the next standard, I tried to get even the *chance* to compile it using the recommended Conan, CMake, and other dependencies.
And failed spectacularly again:
* at some point, the current VS2026 compiler is spat out ("what even is this thing" coming from the attempt to deal with Catch2.Ok, switch off testing for now.
* next some complaints about "avg_speed-headers" missing some support from CMake. What the heck?
The fact that compiler options seem incomplete for full C++23 conformance is certainly only minor, right?
To me, this sounds like building with VS is seriously lacking (in particular CMake).
Therefore I will do what I usually do: move CMakeLists.txt over to a build system, that works for years now, and retain only the source tree.
-
CW: "colourful language" ahead
This pile of shit called CMake and package managers is happening again.
Back from the last ISO C++ meeting in Croydon where we voted on the appetite for inclusion of mp-units into the next standard, I tried to get even the *chance* to compile it using the recommended Conan, CMake, and other dependencies.
And failed spectacularly again:
* at some point, the current VS2026 compiler is spat out ("what even is this thing" coming from the attempt to deal with Catch2.Ok, switch off testing for now.
* next some complaints about "avg_speed-headers" missing some support from CMake. What the heck?
The fact that compiler options seem incomplete for full C++23 conformance is certainly only minor, right?
To me, this sounds like building with VS is seriously lacking (in particular CMake).
Therefore I will do what I usually do: move CMakeLists.txt over to a build system, that works for years now, and retain only the source tree.
-
@PeterSommerlad
Right, this is a tough challenge.Every time I thought I've found a good solution, tests with multiple compilers (possible thanks of @compiler_explorer) and different use cases, at least one of the requirements isn't met.
And then there are compiler implementation bugs. As an example: for the majority of msvc updates from the VS2019 timeframe, code execution isn't reliably stopped (or even at all) at compiletime, producting only compiler warnings. Or older gcc is in some cases totally silent, not even producing a single diagnostic.
Compiletime evaluation is one of the new C++ frontiers where QoI becomes a big differentiator.
The rules of constant expressions are not an easy read. But understanding them well is a prerequisite for e.g. becoming proficient in C++26 reflection.
-
I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I once owned a quite extensive list of "unintended" opcodes in then popular microprocessors like the 6502 or the Z80, but somehow lost it after having finished university and moved on to later technologies. 😭
So, at some time between the end of the 80s and now, my virtual cat or imagined dog must have eaten it. 😉
May be you can still find that stuff on the interwebs, hidden somewhere in between all that AI slop. Wikipedia might help you.
To give you a hint from ancient memories: The Z80 could architecturally access its registers in both 8 bit and 16 bit chunks - except for the IX and IY ones. Documented as index registers like the well-known HL one (i.e. concatenated H and L), they were portrayed as non-splittable. But they were as people found out, giving you more independently manipulatable registers for situations where you could take advantage of that capability. The IX/IY prefixes were functional pretty much everywhere. Later implementations of the Z80 architecture may have lost that undocumented capability.
-
I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I once owned a quite extensive list of "unintended" opcodes in then popular microprocessors like the 6502 or the Z80, but somehow lost it after having finished university and moved on to later technologies. 😭
So, at some time between the end of the 80s and now, my virtual cat or imagined dog must have eaten it. 😉
May be you can still find that stuff on the interwebs, hidden somewhere in between all that AI slop. Wikipedia might help you.
To give you a hint from ancient memories: The Z80 could architecturally access its registers in both 8 bit and 16 bit chunks - except for the IX and IY ones. Documented as index registers like the well-known HL one (i.e. concatenated H and L), they were portrayed as non-splittable. But they were as people found out, giving you more independently manipulatable registers for situations where you could take advantage of that capability. The IX/IY prefixes were functional pretty much everywhere. Later implementations of the Z80 architecture may have lost that undocumented capability.