Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Chandler Carruth
Software, performance, optimization programming languages, security, open source, LLVM, Clang, C++.
2.344
Tweetovi
118
Pratim
11.001
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Chandler Carruth 24 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @SeanParent @TitusWinters @SwiftLang
You could have an independent mechanism for accessing platform libraries. We (almost) have that on Linux with their C APIs & ABIs. Pinning all of C++ (and its standard library) down with a stable ABI for the entire thing largely blocks evolving any of them for performance.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth proslijedio/la je tweet
Titus Winters 3. velj
What discussion points / lines of reasoning / etc do people find most compelling in discussions about C++ ABI compatibility? (Context: prepping slides for the discussion of and next week.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth proslijedio/la je tweet
Chris Armstrong ⚛ 3. velj
One thing I've been doing a lot in marking recently is changing the rubric language from: "poor ➡️ okay ➡️ good ➡️ very good ➡️ excellent" to something more like: "emerging➡️ developing➡️ capable➡️ competent➡️ mastered" I've found it a lot easier to use.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @richgel999
The combined beauty and disappointment of std::vector... 🤦 But out of curiosity, what would be the right direction?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @vtex
I have a very complex relationship with sleep.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Totally missed the correct meme-response to this one...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @blelbach @dotstdy
I'm really trying to not have that rule. But I'm running out of reasons *to* use `std::*`. If we prioritize ABI / compat over performance in Prague, 🤷🏻‍♂️ Is it a blanket rule if we just run out of use cases that actually work?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @blelbach
Sure, but then we should stop spending *obnoxious* amounts of money on the standard library. My users actually want the standard library to cover this kind of stuff. They shouldn't need 90% of what is in Abseil (or other similar libs). But, as you point out, today they do. =/
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @MalwareMinigun i 3 ostali
Not really IMO... std::filesystem is something of a disaster. Basically unusable for many for example.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @blelbach i 3 ostali
I'm not really trying to zero in on Boost, sorry if that came across. I'm saying I don't think *any* library (or even a collection of libraries) addresses enough of what is needed to meaningfully make the process of WG21 LEWG scale up the way it needs to...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @blelbach i 3 ostali
I don't think the existence of boost made the bandwidth much better. Boost isn't a panacea to standardization. =/
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
As has come up several times -- there is no need to implement this in a way that *requires* the name to be stored and available when it would be unreasonable to do so...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @blelbach i 3 ostali
Maybe the wrong thread, but genuinely interested in where these are. Not saying they don't exist, just find them interesting. I've generally expected there to be choices that are specific to some of our *use cases*, but I feel like we are not (completely) alone w/ those...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @blelbach i 3 ostali
Good thing its open source and used elsewhere? =D Anyways, I'm happy to have more libs that provide this. My point is -- the standard library still seems like it *should* be a better target... but at this rate, it isn't viable.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Cor3ntin @joel_f i 3 ostali
I agree! But you're still arguing for why this is abstractly good. That's not the point Bryce made (I think). He's saying: even if it is abstractly good, it is less important than things *we already don't have time to do*. And *that* is an argument that rings true... =[
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hankadusikova @blelbach
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Cor3ntin @joel_f i 3 ostali
I have trouble arguing Bryce is wrong here. The committee *is* struggling to keep up. Put differently, it isn't useful to compare against proposals we *do* entertain. Instead ask: is this more important than things we *don't* entertain for bandwidth? Not sure that it is. =[
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
;] I think I'm reasonably aware. I also don't look at it from that perspective. Or even from a single perspective. My team maintains toolchains ranging from CUDA & GPUs, to servers with 100 - 100k threads, and desktop apps with 1-100... Users in each bracket would benefit IMO.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @adriengnt @joel_f i 4 ostali
Yeah, if this were super hard to implement, I'd understand the reluctance. The fact that we have a plausible space of possible implementation strategies and approaches, but no time/resources to dig into them? Yikes....
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Chandler Carruth 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @joel_f @blelbach i 3 ostali
I have Abseil, so I'm good there. But think about what this means for our ability to actually build and evolve standard libraries: we can't enable names on threads. Good luck with all the hard stuff!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"