thephd

thephd, 1 day ago to random

... Hrm. I could do something cursed and make it so passing NULL to a function for the size of a pointer-to-string argument makes it automatically do strlen on the string to get the size instead. The NULL for the input size serves no other purpose....

soatok, 4 days ago to random

My Signal Username:
soatok.45

Fuck Telegram

thephd, 4 days ago to random

Despite my best wishes,

I am back to editing this document.

thephd, 5 days ago to random

I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document again I don't want to edit this document ag

thephd, 6 days ago to random

One day, things'll calm down and people will be normal.

One day.

thephd, 8 days ago to random

And this is only one of the Forbidden Magic Words I have to cull out.

I'm so tired, man.

thephd, 10 days ago to random

👀 String buffer type in C...?

https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3250.pdf (It's a long paper. You can skip the rationale bits if your brain has been turned on for the last 2 decades and you don't need your hand held through why this is a Good Idea In General, but reading it is still enlightening!)

This paper is not how I would do it, but that's because I want 2 things:

• some of what is contained in this paper, for exactly what is described in this paper
• some of what is contained in this paper, but with no alloc/ownership (manipulation of substrings, etc.)

Before I want to even tackle this question, though, I need to have a language-based span in C (Walter Bright's char meow[..]; stuff) so we can just work with memory slices like normal people and not like insane jerks. So I probably will be neutral/abstain when voting on this, even if I kind of like it. I think it's API would be far stronger if we had slices in the language first. Of course, I don't want to be all "you can't make improvements until I make MY improvements, first!!" on the proposal...!

asociologist, 12 days ago to random

Each of these headlines feels like a form of genocide denial. Israel issues the warning and pushes the story to try to get credit for warning civilians, but those civilians have nowhere safe to go (and Israel hasn’t respected the last many purported safe zones). But the headlines keep coming.

Is that too cynical?

thephd, 13 days ago to random

... Wow, okay. So that cool/weird thing where an artist is in the same public space as you, and they draw you while you're not looking. They... I got drawn?? By this really hot lady artist???? While I was making phone calls/searching online?

AND IT'S REALLY GOOD, TOO!!??!?!

Also, the drawing going (* point *) 🏳️‍🌈🌈! and just hanging it over my shirt, lmao.

I made it, I've been Assigned Gay At Render Time. I'm officially cool now!!!!!

Also.... huh. I... I look kinda.... good--? Almost... h-handsome?!?

This artist did a phenomenal job making me look amazing, lmao.

18+ sebastian, 1 month ago to random

i was nerd sniped in #hare-soc

so, take the declaration typeof((puts("1"), (int (*)[(puts("2"), 1)])0)) a[(puts("3"), 1)], b[(puts("4"), 1)];

(the actual declaration sent in #hare-soc is slightly different, but this is a somewhat simplified version)

when this runs, what should be printed?

i still don't know the fucking answer
the c standard makes it so difficult to find an answer to this question that isn't ambiguously worded, if there is any answer at all

here's what i've gathered from my interpretation of the standard:

• full expressions are sequenced with respect to one another
• initializers which aren't part of compound literals are full expressions
• an implicit full expression is created to evaluate the sizes of arrays in a variably modified type
• within a variably modified type, evaluations are unsequenced
• in a declaration, a type consists of the type on the left, as well as the declarator
• the operands of a comma expression are sequenced with respect to one another
• the operand of a typeof expression is evaluated if the type is variably modified
• the type name in a cast expression is "evaluated" whenever the cast expression is evaluated

some of the stuff above i'm still not 100% sure about. specifically:

• the declaration i'm using doesn't have initializers, but i don't see anything about ordering of the "evaluation" of declarators. however, the spec says in a note that "a full declarator for a variably modified type" is a full expression, which, ??? declarators aren't expressions? how can a declarator be a full expression if it isn't even an expression? but either way, this implies that the declarators are evaluated in order
• the thing about types in declarations being the type on the left and the declarator is just inferred by me. i can't find anything that explicitly says that. so idk what it even means to evaluate the implicit full expression of a variably modified type in this context. so i assume that the type on the left should be evaluated twice; once for each declarator? but it's unclear
• this isn't even really relevant, but the standard says "the evaluations of the initialization list expressions are indeterminately sequenced with respect to one another", but it never defines what an "initialization list" is. it defines "initializer list", it only ever uses the term "initialization list" in one place (outside of annex j "portability issues")

the conclusions i can draw from my interpretation of the standard are:

• 3 and 4 are printed once
• 3 is printed before 4
• 1 is printed before 2
• 1 and 2 are printed twice; once for each declarator
• the printing of 1 and 2 is unsequenced with respect to 3 and with respect to 4

so therefore, the order should be one of:
1 2 3 1 2 4
1 2 3 4 1 2
3 1 2 1 2 4
3 1 2 4 1 2

neither gcc nor clang prints any of the above though. in fact, both gcc and clang only print "2" once(!!!) but "1" is printed twice! which, like, i can't find any way to justify that, even with all the ambiguities???

clang prints 3 1 2 4 1
gcc prints 1 2 3 1 4

both of these seem reasonable, except for the missing 2. but interestingly, with some minor tweaks to the declaration, gcc instead prints 2 3 1 4 1:

int a[1];
typeof((puts("1"), (int ()[(puts("2"), 1)])&a)) (*b)[(puts("3"), 1)], (*c)[(puts("4"), 1)];

so now 2 is being printed first, before 1! which... idk, i guess if the puts("2") is part of the "type", which is evaluated before the actual typeof expression?? but i feel like that's not right??? because there's still a comma expression, and both operands of the comma expression must be evaluated everytime the comma expression is evaluated, and the first operand must evaluate first. so, like, what the fuck

is there some undefined behavior i'm missing here? i don't think there is?
is this a bug in gcc and/or clang? i don't feel comfortable saying that it is, because i imagine the gcc/clang authors know a lot more than i do, and both gcc and clang behave the same with -O0 as with -O3
wtf is going on here