• 15 Posts
  • 185 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2025
  • TheMightyCat@ani.socialtoLinux Phones@lemmy.ca•Librem 5 second-gen $1599 RISC-V Linux phone - OMG! UbuntuEnglish
    2·
    58 minutes ago

    Some people here might remember that i said i was also looking into making a riscv phone.

    Probably not a coincidence then that i was also looking at the SpacemiT K1 and they have also chosen it, its currently the only chip that has the juice and power efficiency required to be the minimum.

    But i mean really the minimum, its slow and especially power hungry when compared to qualcomm chips, and that really is the killer.

    Personally i don’t think RVA23 support is fully mandatory, you can compile stuff for the baseline the chip supports, it is annoying with precompiled stuff but i don’t think its a full dealbreaker.

    I’m as much of a ricv and mobile linux supporter as anyone, but for $1599 this is not worth it.

  • TheMightyCat@ani.socialtoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•Anon died on the "clang format bad" hill
    31·
    22 days ago

    It was a simplified example.

    B and C can’t share any other attributes without duplication of code

    struct A {
    [[nodiscard]] virtual std::uint32_t DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {
    std::uint32_t DoSomething() override { 
        return 0;
    }
};

int main() {
    B b;
    b.DoSomething(); //no warning
}

    even if you use virtual attributes aren’t inherited.

    If you ment members instead of attributes this is unrelated to virtual:

    struct A {
    std::uint32_t a;
};


struct B : A {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C : A {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

    Now the member is shared and it works fine and there is no virtual.

    There’s also no strict enforcement of inheritance.

    True, but neither is there when just using virtual:

    struct A {
    virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {

};

    This compiles fine if final is not added.

    Not that its an issue as reflection has solved this problem:

    consteval std::string_view HasMethods(std::meta::info impl, std::meta::info iface) {
    constexpr auto ctx = std::meta::access_context::unchecked();
    for (auto fn : members_of(iface, ctx)) {
        if (!is_function(fn) || is_special_member_function(fn)) continue;
        bool found = false;
        for (auto cand : members_of(impl, ctx))
            if (is_function(cand) && has_identifier(cand) && identifier_of(cand) == identifier_of(fn) && type_of(cand) == type_of(fn))
                found = true;
        if (!found)
            return std::define_static_string(std::string(identifier_of(impl)) + " is missing " + display_string_of(fn));
    }
    return {};
}


struct A {
    void DoSomething();
};

struct B  {

};
static_assert(HasMethods(^^B, ^^A).empty(), HasMethods(^^B, ^^A));

// g++ -std=c++26 -freflection main.cpp
// main.cpp:30:41: error: static assertion failed: B is missing void A::DoSomething()
// 30 | static_assert(HasMethods(^^B, ^^A).empty(), HasMethods(^^B, ^^A));

    Now you get the strict enforcement of inheritance and no virtual.

  • TheMightyCat@ani.socialtoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•Anon died on the "clang format bad" hill
    41·
    22 days ago

    Why does it make zero sense in C++?

    edit: simplified example of what i mean

    struct A {
    virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {
    void DoSomething() override { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C : A {
    void DoSomething() override { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

void InvokeDoSomething(A* a) {
    a->DoSomething();
}

    vs

    struct B {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

template <typename T>
void InvokeDoSomething(T* t) {
    t->DoSomething();
}
  • TheMightyCat@ani.socialtoBuy European@feddit.uk•Fairphone 6 Plus review: an eco-friendly phone that's finally available in the USEnglish
    2·
    1 month ago

    I’ll happily accept if im wrong as i am not a lawyer and certainly not a Canadian one, ive tried to find enforcement based on it but i can’t find clear cases on it, this is the legislation:

    No person shall manufacture, import, distribute, lease, offer for sale or sell any radio apparatus, interference-causing equipment or radio-sensitive equipment for which a technical acceptance certificate is required under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with such a certificate.

    Radiocommunication Act 4(2)

    The question becomes does “offer for sale or sell any radio apparatus” also apply to companies outside Canada?

    Still, i can imagine a company is not keen on selling products they know are illegal in the destination country, but the seller (outside canada) being liable for the radio act is maybe wrong then.

    On the consumer protection part it does seem correct that the foreign seller is on the hook, atleast for provincial law.

    This Act applies in respect of all consumer transactions if the consumer or the person engaging in the transaction with the consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place.

    Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002, s. 2(1)

    Again assuming “all” then includes foreign transactions.

  • TheMightyCat@ani.socialtoLinux Phones@lemmy.ca•MAKERphone 2.0 Is an Open, Hackable 4G Phone You Build YourselfEnglish
    10·
    1 month ago

    Has anyone been able to find any info on the modem outside of “A 4G modem for connectivity”

    And how they got it network operator and regulatory approved?

    Which networks and carriers does it work on?

    MAKERphone 2.0 uses 4G LTE Cat-1 with 2G fallback and works with any carrier that gives you a nano-SIM.

    This seems quite vague and while i can’t say for sure but as far as i know you can’t just slot a sim into a modem with any arbitrary IMEI and it works on the long term.