- Moving pairs
Given something like a checkers board, moving pairs would be checkers
paired together and arranged on the board
Given something like a checkers board, moving pairs are checker pieces
said to be paired.
The pairs don't have to be next to eachother.
Any way arranged is fair for how
Hi,
I haven't heard anything back on my questions. Can any of C++ frontend
maintainers please shed some light (or comment on my proposed patch)?
Thanks a lot.
Le-chun
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Le-Chun Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my attribute handlers that handle the new th
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote on 21 July 2008 19:51:
> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Hear, hear. The name of the list is an arbitrary label, not
>> instructions on what kind of client to use to access the repository;
>> why, just for the sake of making it "correct" in some non-functional
>> se
"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeez, I didn't realize people felt so viscerally against this. I thought
> the impact on users would be small. I.e. I'm curious who actually
> subscribes to the gcc-cvs list. Is it a large list? (I don't know.)
There are 105 subscribers to the gc
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:50:43AM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Jeez, I didn't realize people felt so viscerally against this. I thought
> the impact on users would be small. I.e. I'm curious who actually
> subscribes to the gcc-cvs list. Is it a large list? (I don't know.)
Just come up with
From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hear, hear. The name of the list is an arbitrary label, not instructions
on what kind of client to use to access the repository; why, just for the
sake of making it "correct" in some non-functional sense of the word
should
everyone in the world have to adju
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> Yes, the suggested changes are good.
Thanks for the review, Arnaud, and thanks again for the patch, Santiago!
I committed this with minor formatting changes and fixed some markup
issues directly afterwards.
Gerald
> I have need to compile code for an old ARC tangent A4 core.
> 1) Gcc 3.x does support ARC Tangent-A4
> 2) Gcc 4.x dose support ARC Tangent-A4
Both contain a port which in principle targets the ARCtangent-A4.
I don't know if it actually works, it might be subject to bitrot.
We at ARC have a mor
David Edelsohn wrote on 21 July 2008 13:33:
>> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
>
> Kaveh> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
The mailing list webpage still refers to CVS:
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Can we rename these lists (perhaps preserving an alias for the old
Hello all,
For the target that i am porting if support for partial argument
passing is enabled i get the following error:
error: Attempt to delete prologue/epilogue insn:
internal compiler error: in propagate_one_insn, at flow.c:1699
This is 16bit target with 4 argument registers. FRAME_POINTER_R
Hi,
(I finally resumed the work on my microcontroller I posted about 3
months ago...)
I have a problem with the jump instructions: my direct jumps are very
limited in displacements, and I want to always generate indirect jumps
instead.
So I wrote this:
(define_insn "jump"
[(se
Hi all
I have need to compile code for an old ARC tangent A4 core.
1) Gcc 3.x does support ARC Tangent-A4
2) Gcc 4.x dose support ARC Tangent-A4
if answer is 'not' for both question i will try to introduce code in
arc.md and arc.c files to compile code for ARC Tangent-A4. Is this an
hard task
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > The mailing list webpage still refers to CVS:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
>> >
>> > Can we rename these lists (perhaps preserving an alias for the old names)
>> > so that they reflect reality?
>>
>> I don'
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 7/20/08 1:43 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > --- 2318,2326
> > for (i = 0; i < gimple_num_ops (s); i++)
> > if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (gimple_op (s, i)))
> > {
> > ! /* FIXME tuples. This assign is over-eager at least
> >
On 7/20/08 1:43 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
--- 2318,2326
for (i = 0; i < gimple_num_ops (s); i++)
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (gimple_op (s, i)))
{
! /* FIXME tuples. This assign is over-eager at least
! for Ada.
! gcc_assert (gimple_ha
Peter Dolding wrote on 21 July 2008 12:12:
> Biggest problem is that gimple only works in source code to object.
> Not with a stack of objects to exe.
We're on the case. You're looking for the LTO project.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think o
Biggest problem is that gimple only works in source code to object.
Not with a stack of objects to exe. This has major downsides for
static building. To the point a lot of static builders end up sending
all .c files into gcc at once so they get cross object optimised.
One possible solution coul
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> > The mailing list webpage still refers to CVS:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
>> >
>> > Can we rename these lists (perhaps preserving an alias for the old names)
>> >
18 matches
Mail list logo
