Thread

1. wahern · 1789747013 · focus · HN ↗

   > When both conditions are met, the loop body is replaced with a call to std::this_thread::yield(). This gives execution of the loop the forward-progress semantics it previously lacked.

   That's the epitome of the hidden code downside that Linus and many others dislike about C++. For constructors and destructors it's somewhat unavoidable and not so random, though Rust does better at limiting the blast radius of non-local code, at least in the drop case.

   If they didn't want to adopt the C11 rule, the C++ committee should've explored a rule that required the compiler to emit a diagnostic or error for trivial loops (whether as defined by C11 or otherwise), requiring the programmer to explicitly insert ::yield or similar. No hidden code, and less opportunity for the compiler to do surprising things.

   The C committee has been rigorously enumerating UB cases in the standard and addressing each case in turn, often by requiring a diagnostic, error, or by turning it into implemention defined behavior. But inserting code like that would be unthinkable.

   1. pwdisswordfishq · 1789759863 · focus · HN ↗

      GNU C does the same: memory copies can be optimized into memcpy, various operations can be realized as calls into libgcc, etc.

      1. rcxdude · 1789776266 · focus · HN ↗

         Those do for the most part correspond to operations which make sense in an embedded context, though.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.