News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Towards fearless SIMD, 7 years later by jenadine on Sunday March 30, 2025 @11:27AM (#43524919)
Some compiler decided to define overflow as wrapping. Such as GCC/clang when passing the -fwrapv flag.

Most projects don't use that flag though, why not?

Nite that if you assume -fwrapv, you're not writing in C anymore, you're using a vendor specific dialect.

Re:Towards fearless SIMD, 7 years later by immibis on Sunday March 30, 2025 @01:06PM (#43525689)
Everyone writes in vendor-specific dialects of C. Both POSIX and Win32 define behaviour that isn't defined in C (such as rules for unaligned pointers), while also undefining behaviour that is defined in C (such as what happens if you call fopen when one of the functions in your program is called "open"). Even on embedded platforms, there's no "main" function in freestanding C - your entry point is a vendor-specific extension.
Re:Towards fearless SIMD, 7 years later by eru on Sunday March 30, 2025 @11:46PM (#43530721)
> Everyone writes in vendor-specific dialects of C.

That's not true. Some people try to write fully spec compliant C programs that would behave the same on every compliant C compiler.

Re:Towards fearless SIMD, 7 years later by immibis on Wednesday April 02, 2025 @04:35AM (#43554711)
Do they define functions called "open"?