From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toon Moene Subject: Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:45:28 +0100 Message-ID: <56D4ADE8.7090403@moene.org> References: <20160218011033.GA1505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160220021516.4898897.32908.5212@gmail.com> <20160220195318.GF3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160227170615.GU3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160227231033.GW3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160228082702.GA300@x4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: To: Linus Torvalds , Markus Trippelsdorf Cc: Paul McKenney , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , parallel@lists.isocpp.org, llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org, Will Deacon , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Peter Zijlstra , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Luc Maranget , Andrew Morton , Jade Alglave , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org 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@moene.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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moene.org ([80.101.130.238]:37220 "EHLO moene.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752320AbcB2Va0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:30:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition References: <20160218011033.GA1505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160220021516.4898897.32908.5212@gmail.com> <20160220195318.GF3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160227170615.GU3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160227231033.GW3522@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160228082702.GA300@x4> From: Toon Moene Message-ID: <56D4ADE8.7090403@moene.org> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:45:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds , Markus Trippelsdorf Cc: Paul McKenney , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , parallel@lists.isocpp.org, llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org, Will Deacon , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Peter Zijlstra , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Luc Maranget , Andrew Morton , Jade Alglave , Ingo Molnar Message-ID: <20160229204528.89t95kCzs-XPCAiqPIzF9_3YKUdVWDA6Bjow9VbweQA@z> 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@moene.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