C-Standards | C version of my Standards library | Game Engine library

I think I found the solution. It is described in appendix of FIPS 202 B.1 (starting on page 26). A hint on this topic is given on page 25:

The convention for interpreting hexadecimal strings as bit strings for the inputs and outputs of the SHA-3 examples is different from the convention for other functions on the examples page. The conversion functions between hexadecimal strings and SHA-3 bit strings are specified in Sec. B.1. For byte-aligned messages, the hexadecimal forms of the padding for the SHA-3 functions are described in Sec. B.2.

There is a good explanation on how to circumvent this issue on cryptologie.net.

Up to C++20, no, none of the standards introduces the constant that would represent the number pi (π). You can approximate the number in your code:

<=> allows the lazy way to also be the performant way. You don't change your client code.

Clients may see performance benefits when there was a using std::rel_ops (or boost::ordered etc).

An example

I think it's a typo/glitch in Herb Sutter's blog post: He should have made those members public, or provided getters for them, or made the std::get() function a friend.

Also, it looks like Herb forgot to put "x" in the function signature...

The function you quote is similar to how std::get() works for tuples. If I have

You need to add a lot more masking here to cut down overflowing bits. For example, your ROTR:

The mixup for gcc was a stdc++ decision (not even gcc). They are indeed incompatible when you set the macro in a different state, but you can mix C++98 with C++11 with libstdc++ if you set it consistently. For instance, on RedHat, the default gcc compiler is old and doesn't support C++11, so the devtools with newer compiler have the macro set to old ABI by default so that they are always compatible.

So if you are consistent with your stdc++ library, no problem. No problem on libc++, VS...

People should really stop writing misleading trip reports with links to outdated papers, at least without a giant flashing neon pink disclaimer. The paper voted in is P1141R2, which will be publicly available in a few weeks. The approved design is roughly parts 1, 3, and 4 of P1141R1.

You get independent binding, i.e., two template parameters in your example:

An abbreviated function template is equivalent to a function template (17.6.5) whose template-parameter-list includes one invented type template-parameter for each occurrence of a placeholder type in the decl-specifier-seq of a parameter-declaration in the function’s parameter-type-list, in order of appearance.

This has been the expected direction since at least early this year.

Yes, it's an aliasing violation to do this. So don't. There's no need to ever use sockaddr_storage; it was a historical mistake. But there are a few safe ways to use it:

1. malloc(sizeof(struct sockaddr_storage)). In this case, the pointed-to memory does not have an effective type until you store something to it.
2. As part of a union, explicitly accessing the member you want. But in this case just put the actual sockaddr types you want (in and in6 and maybe un) in the union rather than sockaddr_storage.

Of course in modern programming you should never need to create objects of type struct sockaddr_* at all. Simply use getaddrinfo and getnameinfo to translate addresses between string representations and sockaddr objects, and treat the latter as completely opaque objects.

Is there, in C++14/17/20, a very terse manner to enable the conversion from case 1 to case 2? I am even open to macro hacks.

Yes.