linux-kernel - Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:45:28 +0100
From:	Toon Moene <toon@...ne.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>, parallel@...ts.isocpp.org,
	llvm-dev@...ts.llvm.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume
 definition

On 02/28/2016 05:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Yeah, let's just say that the original C designers were
> better at their job than a gaggle of standards people who were making
> bad crap up to make some Fortran-style programs go faster.

The original C designers were defining a language that would make it 
easy to write operating systems in (and not having to rely on assembler).

I misled the quote where they said they first tried Fortran (and 
concluded it didn't fit their purpose).

BTW, Fortran was designed around floating point arithmetic (and its 
non-relation to the mathematical concept of the field of the reals).

It used integers only for counting and indexing arrays, so it had no 
purpose for "signed integers that overflowed". Therefore, to the Fortran 
standard, this was "undefined". It was literally "undefined" - as it was 
not described by the standard's text.

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@...ne.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news