On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
[Sorry for double post - gmail insists that "GCC" is gcc-patches@, not
gcc@ :-/ ]
Hello,
Here is a non-comprehensive list of macros that are used with a
function passed to the macro's argument, and the macro evaluates that
argument at least twice:
gimple.c: && (CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (gim
On 11/12/13 14:19, Alec Teal wrote:
The name David Malcolm comes to mind, I remember watching a GCC ...
bucket, tub, some sort of large container (pot?) talk on it.
He was replacing all the macros with a class with no virtuals (only one
data member, as used by the macros in effect) and so forth
On 11/12/13 13:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:59:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of
code like this
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is a macro, which accepts everything, just adding
The name David Malcolm comes to mind, I remember watching a GCC ...
bucket, tub, some sort of large container (pot?) talk on it.
He was replacing all the macros with a class with no virtuals (only one
data member, as used by the macros in effect) and so forth and using
inheritance, doesn't tha
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Note that we have tons of code which accept either objects or types,
> both in the frontends and in the middle-end, so changing TREE_TYPE
> from tree to something else is definitely non-trivial.
Well, sure it's hard. This is the whole poin
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:59:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of
> code like this
>
> if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is a macro, which accepts everything, just adding
a TYPE_CHECK to that macro would be
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's time to move on and do something sensible with the core parts of our
> ILs so that we're all more effective in the long run.
My sentiments, exactly!
Diego.
[rant]
So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of code
like this
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
With everything being a tree, the fact that I passed an SSA_NAME to
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P rather than a tree type wasn't caught at compile time.
Because this
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 00:19, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 11/08/13 05:36, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > I realised that the C11 atomics changes didn't do anything to record
> > atomic types as such in DWARF debug info - then found that DWARF4 didn't
> > provide a way to specify the C11 _Atomic qualifier at all.
Hi Everyone,
The exploration of how compilation optimizations affect energy
consumption of embedded devices has been written up and published. Full
paper (open access) can be viewed here:
http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/11/comjnl.bxt129.abstract
Thanks,
James
ABSTRAC
On 11/11/2013 09:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
>> On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
> If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
>
> From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
> with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
> the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
> amount of time:
>
> default languages:67 minutes
> default - java:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:41AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM, FX wrote:
>>
>> > > Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
>> > > Two possible ways to go:
>> > > - disable li
16 matches
Mail list logo
