BatmanAoD

I feel like we're talking past each other. My impression was that 30% towards your living situation is a pretty decent target; what would you expect the percentage to be?

Okay, what I meant was, is rent taking 30% really indicative of a low standard of living?

Rent eating 30-40% of your income is extremely normal, isn't it? Or is that only true in the US (where it has recently become much more than that for many people)?

Lots of acronyms no longer stand for anything due to losing their original associations. LLVM, AT&T, SAT (the test, not the programming problem), etc.

Probably moreso for expressing the opinion so strongly without actually knowing any of the three languages.

Edit: I'm just guessing why a different comment got downvotes. Why am I getting downvotes?

Doesn't the first edition use K&R style parameter lists and other no-longer-correct syntax?

If you mean the box at the top, with "Larger Text", "Default", and "More Space", mouse-over shows a resolution spec. Is it actually just scaling "as if" the screen had the given resolution?

Even so, I can understand how a Mac user would be confused by this and expect the equivalent feature in a different OS to be called "resolution".

Based on the headline, they've probably maladapted to Mac OS, which doesn't actually have a scaling setting.

(This is somewhat baffling to me, since Apple clearly cares a lot about their display hardware and about having good screen resolution.)

You don't have to imagine it; you can browse the Linux Kernel mailing list!

That's called a mailing list

/s

I think generally C compilers prefer to keep the stack intact for debugging and such.

Okay, yeah, I was indeed reading your original reply as a criticism of one of the people involved (presumably the security researcher), rather than as a criticism of the post title. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Apparently GCC does indeed do tail-call optimization at -O2: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-foptimize-sibling-calls

But in that case, I'm not sure why the solution to the denial of service vulnerability isn't just "compile with -foptimize-sibling-calls."