Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more ototot's comments login

I believe this kind of issues happen in Google everywhere. Not sure who to blame for, but it’s definitely a severe crisis Google is facing. Google should spend time fixing it.


Is this a post posted by me? I have basically the same thought on the new control center. The new UI and edit flow truly disappoint me a lot.

The connection group is also a terrible idea. Why don't apple just let you do grouping yourself and make every button in it to be available.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35782630

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28283030


similar: https://vuejs.org/?uwu


Given the range. Doesn't look like DNS


So... No way it could be DNS?


Narrator: it was DNS


They layoff too many ppl.


why don't they use a real textbook?


Because it’d either be expensive or illegal, and all content owners are paying attention now


Sorry what is TFA?


The fucking article.


The Fine Article.


calque of 'rtfm'


The largest forum (PTT) in Taiwan is also a BBS that you can access it with SSH.

https://github.com/ptt/bbs-sshd

Of course, nowadays you can also access PTT through websocket or a web interface.


Would there be anything of interest to an English speaker though? When I was in Taiwan I found very few people that spoke English.

Having said that it was 20 years ago :P


This is not a bug. This is the model of C. You should blame C not GCC.


I blame GCC. The C standards committee is some out of touch with reality conglomerate working in a vacuum, taking 50 years of language history into account.

I expect my compiler vendor to be on my side, ie produce a compiler that helps me write good software and not get in my way. GCC is doing the opposite, it's deliberately looking to use the standard to fuck me over in the most subtle and unexpected ways. Signed integer overflow is undefined; that gives compiler authors the liberty to make it do anything they want, including well defined things that anyone would expect and find useful. But GCC decides to fuck you over so their devs can give you an arrogant reply and impose their superiority if you show up on their bug tracker.


Turns out people get upset when their code goes slower because the the compiler added traps on signed overflow.


Don't add traps, just let it overflow and don't fuck up any bounds checks the programmer added.


That's still slower than UB.

With UB compilers can assume that eg 'x + 1 > x' is always true for signed integers. That allows quite a few optimizations.


Why can they assume that? how on earth did "undefined" ever get read as "can not happen"? if the standard meant "can not happen", they would have said "can not happen". but they did not, they said we are not going to define what is going to happen. or in other words, the cpu is going to do something when this happens but we don't know what.

Nothing in there lets the compiler get to say "this will never happen". but they do exactly this.


Because compilers only work with programs that have well-formed executions.


> just let it overflow

I agree with this. Making integer overflow UB is ridiculous.

> and don't fuck up any bounds checks

But I disagree with this. That's just normal UB-based optimization, one of the point of having UB at all is to do such optimization.


Ok well yes, technically as soon as the compiler doesn't treat the overflow as UB anymore the second part is not applicable anymore. Badly worded on my side.


This is bad because few programs are built to deal with two positive numbers being multiplied returning a negative result.


Yet no programs are built to deal with UB... Accidental UB is the curse of modern C.


GCC's developers work for companies that want more optimizations. UB is the way you get these optimizations.

But "gcc -fsanitize=undefined" is just as easy to run as "gcc -O3" is.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: