workingjubilee

6 ms·

1.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
The other procedural languages are also not mystically secure from soundness problems, people just fuzz them less.
2.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
I'm not based in China, bro. You're the one who went around accusing random people of being advanced persistent threat actors, and now you can't even keep your story straight. Do not post blatant lies.
3.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
The "small string optimization" makes the strings harder to manipulate with `unsafe` code. However, being easy to manipulate with `unsafe` code is in fact a priority for most std types, so that they are easily understood, extended
4.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
I don't usually express my frustration by shouting at a pile of HTML but this one had me going "LEMME LOOK!"
5.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
struggle sessions usually involve public torture or executions. it's laughable to compare "being mildly inconvenienced" with that.
6.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
what would "stabilize" mean when the opsem model that miri obeys continues to change?
7.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
yeah, g-d forbid that any routine busywork gets automated by software, otherwise all those lines of code might actually have a point!
8.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
The Rust calling convention is actually defined as unstable, so 1.79 is allowed to have a different calling convention than 1.80 and so on. I don't think designing one for the long term is a real concern right now.
9.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
Allowing developer control over calling conventions is also simultaneous with disallowing optimization in the case that Function A calls Function B calls Function C calls Function D etc. but along the way one or more of those functions coul
10.
by workingjubilee 2y ago
Your experience is not perfectly transferable. JITs have it easy on this because they've already gathered a wealth of information about the actually-executing-on CPU by the time they generate a single line of assembly. Calls appear on
11.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
This is a frankly ridiculous assertion given LKML's notoriously toxic history. Part of the problem is that overly-entitled maintainers can be as equally dangerous to actual progress in the project by stonewalling useful code on invente
12.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
Nice.
13.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
aw geez, now we have to compile docs, too?!
14.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
Eliminating "custom workflows" seems like rather the point of such an extension.
15.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
Have you ever heard of "CMPXCHG8B"?
16.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
You have not described a mechanism or API by which the compiler or programmer could enforce that only Leak types are on the stack and that a longjmp will not traverse `!Leak` types. And the only real way to get this would be to describe an
17.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
It can be the case that people didn't feel that unions were a net positive from the 1960s~2000s and now, starting from somewhere in the late 2010s, have begun reconsidering whether unions are net positive. All that needs to change is c
18.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
My remark was an observation based on the obvious public resentment, rather than necessarily an exhortation to do so. I promise you, I will not be so cagey and ambiguous when I actually call for someone's head on the chopping block.
19.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
The answer to that is simple: We do. We try to catch things before public release. We run UNSPEAKABLE amounts of regression tests. We ask people to test unstable things. Almost no one actually does test the unstable things. There's too
20.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
The rustc driver for trusted PL/Rust prevents using the subset of the Rust language required to trigger those issues. Most of them are things that would have a hard time traversing the Postgres procedure call boundary, anyways, in a le
21.
by workingjubilee 3y ago
It's just the name of the repo: the actual target is ${arch}-postgres-linux-gnu.