Article <561654fafbeb5e542817dbc5f0ee993e@www.novabbs.org>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <561654fafbeb5e542817dbc5f0ee993e@www.novabbs.org>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<561654fafbeb5e542817dbc5f0ee993e@www.novabbs.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Another security vulnerability
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:37:13 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <561654fafbeb5e542817dbc5f0ee993e@www.novabbs.org>
References: <utpoi2$b6to$1@dont-email.me> <2024Mar25.082534@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20240326192941.0000314a@yahoo.com> <uu0kt1$2nr9j$1@dont-email.me> <VpVMN.731075$p%Mb.618266@fx15.iad> <2024Mar27.191411@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <HH_MN.732789$p%Mb.8039@fx15.iad> <5fc6ea8088c0afe8618d2862cbacebab@www.novabbs.org> <TfhNN.110764$_a1e.90012@fx16.iad> <jwvedbmco81.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <uukcpe$4g83$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4187187"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="PGd4t4cXnWwgUWG9VtTiCsm47oOWbHLcTr4rYoM0Edo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$Q0KBeeDw8PtBBkvT9fNaJ.htRLkdwsMQSHxliC2rlmPNJUvysy77W
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2179
Lines: 24

Thomas Koenig wrote:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> schrieb:
>>> Since each chased pointer starts back at LSQ, the cost is no different
>>> than an explicit Prefetch instruction, except without (a),(b) and (c)
>>> having been applied first.
>>
>> I thought the important difference is that the decision to prefetch or
>> not can be done dynamically based on past history.

> Programmers and compilers are notoriously bad at predicting
> branches (except for error branches), 

Which are always predicted to have no error.

>                                       but ought to be quite good
> at predicting prefetches.

What makes you think programmers understand prefetches any better than
exceptions ??
 
>                           If a pointer is loaded, chances are
> very high that are it will be dereferenced.

What if the value loaded is NULL.