News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by jandrese on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @05:29PM (#14905552)
I wonder how many processors there are in use these days that don't use 2s complement. I don't think I've ever seen one.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by davemp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @05:32PM (#14905578)
Certainly not general CPUs, but there are probably domain specific processors out there that use something else. Why would you want to design a domain specific processor and still use C? Beats me.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by adrianratnapala on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @06:01PM (#14905794)
Even if you don't really want C on such a process there will be an emergent and unholy aliance between (1) a pointy-hair impulse within the manufucturer to have "programmable in C" on the feature list and (2) an empire-building impulse within the C standards writing ecosystem that wants to encompass every chip under the sun.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by davemp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @07:58PM (#14906644)
Those forces are so strong people are still pushing for C on FPGAs.
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by smitherfield on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @12:01AM (#14907812)
The bigger reason it's still undefined is to enable this type of optimization: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857316
Re:Rust: Not So Great For Codec Implementing by jandrese on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @09:48AM (#14910484)
The comment thread seems to suggest that even if you define the behavior you can still optimize that case, and in fact Clang does.