HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

diek

no profile record

Submissions

GitHub Is Down

github.com
6 points·by diek·7 miesięcy temu·1 comments

comments

diek
·28 dni temu·discuss
FWIW, any accredited CS degree program in the US will have rigorous math and science requirements: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/cr...

I don't think it was worded very well, but I think the parent comment was saying, "the bulk of CS can be covered in a masters program, so take an undergrad degree that has the same overlap in math/science, but a different focus". I'm not sure I agree, spreading the absorption of that knowledge over 4 years can be beneficial.
diek
·2 miesiące temu·discuss
That's a fair point, using 'interpreter' specifically was imprecise language on my part. My main point was php-fpm is developed by the core PHP team and is often the default in how PHP projects deploy these days, and that CVE was very similar to the recent 'fail' LPE vulnerabilities in the kernel.
diek
·2 miesiące temu·discuss
CVE-2021-21703 [0] is a similar class of bug in the PHP interpreter itself that was pretty recent

https://www.sentinelone.com/vulnerability-database/cve-2021-...
diek
·4 miesiące temu·discuss
My first reaction was, "watch, they're going to replace actual rigorous educational institutions with religious colleges" and lo and behold, "Liberty University" is at the top of the list for replacement civilian institutions.
diek
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
[flagged]
diek
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
[flagged]
diek
·8 miesięcy temu·discuss
From the description I thought the expression was a function of only 't', and there was no (for instance) accumulation of the previously computed byte. Then in the image I saw the same value of 't' evaluating to different values:

t=1000: 168 t=1000: 80

Reading the source: https://github.com/KMJ-007/zigbeat/blob/main/src/evaluator.z...

It does look like the expression is a pure function of 't', so I can only assume that's a typo.
diek
·9 miesięcy temu·discuss
You're correct. If you have:

  public int someField;
 
  public void inc() {
    someField += 1;
  }
that still compiles down to:

  GETFIELD [someField]
  ICONST_1
  IADD
  PUTFIELD [somefield]
whether 'someField' is volatile or not. The volatile just affects the load/store semantics of the GETFIELD/PUTFIELD ops. For atomic increment you have to go through something like AtomicInteger that will internally use an Unsafe instance to ensure it emits a platform-specific atomic increment instruction.