A few months ago I happened to install Debian/unstable on a G4 mini. ppc32 is no longer a supported architecture -- purely "what you get is what you get".
Still, the process was mostly painless. Everything I needed worked out of the box.
This is the exact same transition process 68k went through for most platforms it was on. Just left it in the build process and as packages were unable to be built for the arch they just delisted them from the builder until core packages no longer functioned; at which point total support was removed:
I’m pretty sure most large storage operations (U-Haul, extra space, etc) have per unit door sensors which work in concert with customer check in/out to verify authorized openings.
I have never encountered anything like this at storage units from a wide scale of corporate ownership, different levels of newness, and different levels of affluence in the area. Not saying they don't exist but I've never seen any reasonably priced storage units that bother with this level of tracking.
I'm pretty sure they don't: source I've helped move people's stuff in and out of a couple of different places. My experience is very limited, so if you have more data points where you have seen such things, please share.
I can speak for U-Haul specifically because I have used them and a customer can see the sensors in their unit. The sensors are deactivated when a customer checks in.
The local storage operation I use has exactly that. If you do not "badge in" and open a door - the alarm goes off. When the manager was showing me the unit he said "Hey, an alarm is going to go off when I open this door - don't be surprised" and explained the system.
Yup! My local U-Haul has a sign in/out system. In the main office there's a monitor/giant TV that shows a map of the facility, including alerts for all doors currently open and authorized.
If I don't sign in, as soon as I try to roll my door up the alarms are going to go off. If I don't sign out after closing the door and leaving, the next time I try to sign in I will be denied entry until I speak to a manager and be yelled at about signing out when I leave.
> in that case, a compiler still must set something up to fulfil the main `noexcept` promise - call `std::terminate()`
This is actually something that has been more of a problem in clang than gcc due to LLVM IR limitations... but that is being fixed (or maybe is already?) There was a presentation about it at the 2023 LLVM Developer's meeting which was recently published on their youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMUeTaIe1CU
The short version (as I understand) is that you don't really need to produce any code to call std::terminate, all you need is tell the linker it needs to leave a hole in the table which maps %rip to the required unwind actions. If the unwinder doesn't know what to do, it will call std::terminate per the standard.
IR didn't have a way of expressing this "hole", though, so instead clang was forced to emit an explicit "handler" to do the std::terminate call
In MSVC we've also pretty heavily optimized the whole function case such that we no longer have a literal try/catch block around it (I think there is a single bit in our per function unwind info that the unwinder checks and kills the program if it encounters while unwinding). One extra branch but no increase in the unwind metadata size
The inlining case was always the hard problem to solve though
No. Misremembering naming and product changes from over 30 years ago.
Remember that OSF/1 was an attempt to win the UNIX wars.
The later versions of ULTRIX had lots of BSD4.3 features that really made the move to ACP based systems feel more like a silicon change than a new OS from an admin perspective, even if not mach based.
Anything that ran bind and pop was running a later version with the bsd4.3 TCP/IP stack.
After seeing how term limits work in the California state legislature, I stopped being a fan of them.
The first (small) problem is that it caused unneeded intra-party drama. Effective assembly members would end up forced to seek a "promotion" into the state senate if they wanted to stay in politics. This often meant challenging members of the same party. This ends with people constantly fighting their "allies" to scramble up the greased pole, rather than doing more useful work.
Of course, that can happen even without term limits (politicians are the ambitious sort) but they definitely accelerate the effect.
The worse problem is that all of the legislators are now short-timers. But do you know who aren't newbs? The lobbyists! Since they're now the only ones around with deep experience, they invariably get even more involved with crafting laws.
This actually dove-tails into the other problem with the lobbying industry: the revolving door from legislator to the lobbying firm. Even without term limits this happens all of the time. It's very common for a retiring US House member to immediately get a lucrative job lobbying their former colleagues. However in a term-limited legislative body this only gets worse. Not only do lobbyists become more powerful, but term limits provide a guaranteed flow of politicians needing a new job.
So, if you find yourself as a newly-elected politician in such a system and you actually want to make a difference, probably your best bet is to immediately find some lobbyists to get sweet with. They are the only ones with the experience to make the political machinery work, and they're probably your future employer as well.
So at least in my observation, the ultimate effect of term-limits is to transfer power from democratically elected representatives to well-funded special interests. By un-entrenching the politicians you're accidentally making another group even more entrenched.
By contrast, I think the very top legislators are ones that become a true expert in their field of interest. Imagine somebody who has been working on, say, education policy for decades. They know every policy detail, all of the stakeholders, all of the experts. In a world of term limits, how will such a person ever emerge?
All of the above is specifically about legislative term limits. I believe the case for executive term limits is much stronger.
> all of the legislators are now short-timers. But do you know who aren't newbs? The lobbyists!
Sounds like a reason to outlaw lobbying.
> I think the very top legislators are ones that become a true expert in their field of interest.
They're not actual experts in the actual field. They're experts in working the system to favor partisans of the field. Not the same thing.
An actual expert in an actual non-political field would be doing productive work in that field. The real root problem is that we expect politicians to be "experts" in anything other than making sure the government does the limited things it's supposed to do, and nothing else--we want to use the government as a tool to solve whatever problems we see, instead of as an umpire whose sole job should be protecting everyone's basic rights and stopping there.
Probably the person you're replying to is just confused because before it was standardized some snprintf() implementations returned -1 on overflow. If you were trying to be portable and defensive you'd need to check for either error return.
Not really a concern inside musl because those implementations are probably long gone and because it's calling its own snprintf() anyway.
I'm not confused. I know that some snprintf implementations returns/returned -1 on overflow. I assume that musl doesn't, because it's a fine library.
> If you were trying to be portable and defensive you'd need to check for either error return.
Including defensive against future changes.
I'm sure thousands of bugs are being written every day because people don't check return values that "can't happen", because they know the code they call. Then 10-20 years later, someone changes that code they depend on, without violating the contract.
I encounter these kinds of bugs all the time. There's a simple way to avoid them: Check the damn return values, even if just with an assert.
The extra annoying ones are ones with a comment saying "Can't happen", that then does happen. The person who wrote that could have spent about the same number of characters simply handling the "can't happen".
We can't get away from Hyrum's Law, but we sure can try to minimize its impact.
Still, the process was mostly painless. Everything I needed worked out of the box.