On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:52, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:35, Greg McGary wrote:
> > I'm working with a machine that has a memory-increment insn. It's a
> > network-processor performance hack that allows no-latency accumulation
> > of statistical counters. The insn
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It should just work if you have the appropriate movsi pattern/alternative.
> m68k has an memory-increment instruction (aka add :-).
Touche. I've had my head in RISC-land too long... 8^)
G
On Saturday 24 September 2005 23:35, Greg McGary wrote:
> I'm working with a machine that has a memory-increment insn. It's a
> network-processor performance hack that allows no-latency accumulation
> of statistical counters. The insn sends the increment and address to
> the memory controller whi
I'm working with a machine that has a memory-increment insn. It's a
network-processor performance hack that allows no-latency accumulation
of statistical counters. The insn sends the increment and address to
the memory controller which does the add, avoiding the usual
long-latency read-increment-
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050924 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050924/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 CVS branch
with the following options: -D2005-09-24 17:43 UTC
You'll
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>| We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the
>| installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems).
> I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries
> are always installed with INSTALL_
Audison Athena wrote on 24/09/2005 19:01:05:
[...]
>
> class RandomGenObj {
[...]
> int main() {
> vector v1(10, 10);
> RandomGenObj rg();
You have just declared a function named rg, that
accepts void and returns RandomGenObj by value.
C++'s ambiguity is a great thing, isn't it?
>
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
class RandomGenObj {
public:
RandomGenObj() {
srand(static_cast(time(0)));
}
int operator()(int remainder) const {
return rand() % remainder;
}
};
int main() {
vector v1(10, 10);
"Alisdair Meredith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > I know the proposals did not dig into all the corner cases -- and I
| > don't even know whether they considered the case. But, at some point,
| > someone has to go through the sheer number of proposals and try to
| >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Elliston) wrote on 21.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Per Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> > A -Weverything that turned on all boolean warnings would be nice. It
> > would be useless alone, but nice followed by a lot of
> > -Wno-somesillywarning -Wno-anothersillywarning arguments.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJ Delorie) wrote on 21.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Incidentally, any time I've done this, I wanted labels on warnings
> > as to what option was responsible
>
> -fdiagnostics-show-option
... as alluded to in the text immediately following the place yu snipped.
MfG Kai
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I know the proposals did not dig into all the corner cases -- and I
> don't even know whether they considered the case. But, at some point,
> someone has to go through the sheer number of proposals and try to
> paint a global picture and see how they interact with existi
"Alisdair Meredith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > The issue was whether GNU g++ uses it as an *implementation detail*
| > that will be affected if constructors suddenly became recursive.
|
| I was not aware the proposal supported recursive constructors - in the
| se
> Short story:
> To make delta debugging more useful, gcc's STL system headers should
> all compile without warnings at the highest error checking level
> without the use of hardcoded warning suppressions in the compiler
> based on whether the code is in a system header or not (see
> http://g
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The issue was whether GNU g++ uses it as an *implementation detail*
> that will be affected if constructors suddenly became recursive.
I was not aware the proposal supported recursive constructors - in the
sense that the syntax I saw had no obvious way to terminate any
r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Saturday 17 September 2005 17:45, you wrote:
>> That's a real misunderstanding. There are many warnings that are very
>> specialized, and if -Wall really turned on all warnings, it would be
>> essentially useless. The idea behind -Wall is that it repres
Short story:
To make delta debugging more useful, gcc's
STL system headers should all compile without
warnings at the highest error checking level
without the use of hardcoded warning suppressions in the compiler
based on whether the code is in a system header or not
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
On 9/23/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
> LAST_UPDATED: Fri Sep 23 04:57:40 UTC 2005
>
> Currently, using bubblestrap, in gcc cvs 4.0 branch, I get failures like this:
double-checking this from a clean
18 matches
Mail list logo
