Its an imperfect system, just following the script that law provides will lead to injustices. Having an escape hatch is a good thing, even if it is occasionally abused. I would support federal/state congresses overturning pardons though.
3,508 karma · joined May 18, 2013
Its an imperfect system, just following the script that law provides will lead to injustices. Having an escape hatch is a good thing, even if it is occasionally abused. I would support federal/state congresses overturning pardons though.
Again, the problem isn't that the mainline kernel _couldnt_ support these boards, is that no one wants to put in the work to bring their implementations up to the standards of the mainline kernel.
Many of these Arm SoCs are running linux forks because there are some terrible baked in drivers, and no spec associated with them. Still, that is a step ahead of the M1 as there are at least drivers that don't have to be decompiled and reverse engineered.
There was a time in the 90s/00s where you bought software in a big box, and it came with all sorts of manuals and such. The tangible assets (manual, floppy, box, whatever) along with the licensing agreement made that software much more valuable than the software we use today.
AFAIR on x86 a locked rdtsc is ~20 cycles. So to answer the gp question, it has around a precision in the few nanoseconds range. Accuracy is a different question, IE compare numbers from the same die, but be a little more suspicious across dies.
No clue how this is implemented on the M1, or if the M1 has the same modern tsc guarantees that x86 has grown over the last few generations of chips.
I kinda want this on a mug or something.
Depends on how those programs were written. Iterators should avoid bounds checking for example.
Every large scale C code base I have worked on has had these things, and they were used as you say all over the place. If I were to encounter a code base that didn't have these things I would wonder why it was written in C in the first place.