On 11/26/20 6:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
I've touched on the subject a few times, e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2019-December/230993.html
and https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2019-December/231013.html
Libstdc++ code is indented by 2 columns for the enclosing namespace,
usual
On 10/26/2016 12:31 PM, Will Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Will Hawkins wrote:
My name is Will Hawkins and I am a longtime user of gcc and admirer of
the project. I hope that this is the proper forum for the question
On 10/26/2016 01:17 PM, Will Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Will Hawkins wrote:
Thank you for your response! I don't think that there has to be
controversy to be interesting. Obviously that split/reunification was
impor
On 12/30/2014 07:50 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 29-12-2014 16:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
The note about C++14 conformance is great as it stands modulo link
errors.
Why is it great to not mention the experimental qualifier?
Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std
On 12/27/2014 08:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 December 2014 at 00:08, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 26-12-2014 1:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
language feature-c
On 09/21/2014 09:56 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
+ is a binary operator. 0x3ffe is a hexidecimal-constant according
to 6.6.4.1 in n1256.pdf. 63 is, of course, a decimal-constant.
Also, a hex floating point uses p as an exponent for this reason...
These should just be adding integers.
i = 0x3ff
On 08/03/2014 08:28 PM, Florian Goth wrote:
Hi!
Thanks Ed for the kind reception of this idea.
To show what I have done so far I have set up a git repository here:
https://github.com/CaptainSifff/zeta
Obviously it is not yet in a state where it looks like sth. from the standard
library; it still
On 07/31/2014 01:03 PM, Florian Goth wrote:
Hi!
I've noticed that gcc's libstdc++ has implementations of
the zeta function and the hurwitz-zeta functions.
Is there any work going on with them?
Would an implementation of hurwitz_zeta in terms of the Polylogarithm be
helpful?
Thanks,
Florian.
On 07/31/2014 07:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:52 AM, NightStrike wrote:
One thing you might want to consider is that with the typical X.Y.Z
versioning of most GNU projects, changing X allows breaking
compatibility in a significant way with previous versions. While Z
While thinking about C++ n3694 feature test macros I noticed we still define
__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro in c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c.
We got rid of all uses of it in libstdc++.
I propose we get rid of it here too.
User's shouldn't be relying on it. No?
OTOH, it may have been a proxy for __c
Greetings,
I have a situation where I would like to detect if a string is a
currently defined macro.
Something like a
bool cpp_is_macro(const unsigned char *);
would be great.
Or perhaps I could construct something from the string and test that.
If something like this doesn't exist does
I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14
faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float
operator:
constexpr complex
operator"" i_f(); // fugly
The obvious choice
constexpr complex
operator"" if();
failed because 'if' is a keyword. The
On 06/05/2013 10:43 AM, kuldeep dhaka wrote:
Hello,
while working on a program i faced a problem.
i need only 20 bit , and having a 32 bit only waste more memory(12
byte), 24bit would much be better.
i need a uint24_t variable but gcc dont support it so i have to start
with uint32_t.
it would be
On 12/03/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 12/03/2012 04:54 PM, Nolen, Steven D wrote:
In the c++11 headers for the random number generation (random.h), the
function "discard" for the linear_congruential has been implemented
in a very inefficient manner.
As I mentioned when we optimiz
.
Regards,
Ed
libcpp
2012-11-05 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR c++/54413
* include/cpplib.h (cpp_interpret_float_suffix): Add cpp_reader* arg.
(cpp_interpret_int_suffix): Add cpp_reader* arg.
* init.c (cpp_create_reader): Iitialize new
On 11/15/2011 08:51 AM, James Hirschorn wrote:
I guess "fold" means do the computation at compile time?
No, it is being called with a variable. That is interesting that libc has a
gamma function. I will have to track down the implementation ...
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lance Taylor
On 11/06/2011 10:40 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 6 November 2011 15:03, David Brown wrote:
What usually happens is that if C has claimed a new keyword already
C++ will reuse it. When C++ has added a new keyword such as
static_assert the C committee has preferred to add keywords in the
reserve
s are
explicitly rejected by the c++ front end. Attempts to use such
literals: int i= 1.23k; results in 'error: fixed-point types not
supported in C++'.
So I ask the question: Should I make a simple change to libcpp to
allow fixed-point literal suffixes to pass to the user-defined
litera
an't fill the template argument pack.
I tried tsubst and all I get is:
operator"" _abc<>();
Any hints on how to fill the template agument list?
My patch is over on gcc-patches.
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland.
maybe you would be interested in mentoring me and we
could combine our efforts.
Kind regards,
Levon
- Original Message -
From: Ed Smith-Rowland<3dw...@verizon.net>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [C++-0X] User-defined literals
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:13:19 -0400
Greetings,
I am
type_list (void_type_node, char16_array_type_node,
size_type_node, NULL_TREE);
I'm hoping that this matches
(const char16_t*, std::size_t)
but it doesn't.
Ideas?
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland
Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
Those of us hoping to play with the new Objective-C want to know. ;-)
Thank you,
Ed
This is to get a paper trail started.
TODO: Find out if/what LTO issues there may be with user-defined literals.
Ed
On 09/21/2010 06:47 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I'm holding out for rolling back the lexer in some way that won't break
everything and emitting the (unrecognized by cpp ) suffix as a separate
identifier token. I'm thinking the cp_lexer_* routines or maybe a new one in
parser.c would be worth try
On 09/21/2010 07:05 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I had to initialize the variable nested_being_defined to get it to compile
(possible uninitialized warning). I initialized it to false.
Ok, actually it is never used uninitialized, but let's get rid of the warning.
I saw that it was never u
On 09/20/2010 09:58 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Hello all.
This patch tries to implement the C++0x featue "Forward declarations
for enums" aka "opaque enum declarations":
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2764.pdf
Please note that this is a WIP, and as such lacks formatting,
On 09/19/2010 02:37 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Maybe Rodrigo would be interested in collaborating on this work?
Sure I am! Please, let me a couple of days to re-read the C++ draft,
and check this patch.
Also, take in account that I'm in no way a GCC expert... but I'll do my best.
Also I hav
Greetings,
I am slowly working on user defined literals for C++-0x.
This is my first foray into the C++ front end and I'm stuck.
Anyway, I managed to parse things like
long double
operator"" _foo(long double x) { return 2.0L * x; }
The result is a normal function that I can either call li
Before I continue I was wondering if anyone else is working on this.
If I need to continue (check cwg_active.html#1108) I'll probably be
asking for help.
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland
n.
If no one is already doing this I might continue to try my hand at it.
Since this is my first foray into the front end I'll b begging for help ;-).
Ed Smith-Rowland
Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 02/26/2010 01:03 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Paolo Carlini writes:
At the moment I'm trying to cook up something fixing that count with
LDBL_MANT_DIG, but maybe there is something simpler, maybe using
preprocessor bui
Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 02/26/2010 01:03 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Paolo Carlini writes:
At the moment I'm trying to cook up something fixing that count with
LDBL_MANT_DIG, but maybe there is something simpler, maybe using
preprocessor builtins?!?
What's wrong with LDBL_MA
Greetings,
I have a patch in my tree that employs the constexpr keyword in most of
the places in the library where it is required in n3000. This patch
bootstraps and causes no new regressions on MacOS at least. I still
need test cases.
My question is this: Is constexpr in good enough shape
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Well, for the new features in the trunk: Have a look at the release
notes for the upcoming version 4.5 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
For C++ 0x (1x?) have also a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/cxx0x_status.html
Yes, I know th
Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
A prerelease tarball of the upcoming mpc-0.8 is available here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.8-dev.tar.gz
This release is feature complete with respect to C99 and GCC's needs.
So I expect to make this version be the one
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
A prerelease tarball of the upcoming mpc-0.8 is available here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.8-dev.tar.gz
This release is feature complete with respect to C99 and GCC's needs.
So I expect to make this version be the one made mandatory for the
gcc-4.5 rel
use a member access operator to access a static
member, shouldn't constexpr work through that method too?
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland
I added myself (Edward Smith-Rowland) to MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval).
I work on libstdc++.
Thanks all, especially my mentors Paolo Carlini and Benjamin Kosnik ;-),
Ed Smith-Rowland
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be l
Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/28/2009 10:47 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
We need a gcc branch for concepts.
Probably, if someone is working on them, just as for any ongoing project.
That leaves open the question of whether the ConceptGCC branch is the
one.
No. Doug felt that much of
Adam Butcher wrote:
Hi
Esben Mose Hansen writes:
this program SEGFAULTs
#include
int main() {
int numbers[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 };
const std::size_t nn = sizeof(numbers)/sizeof(int);
int sum = 0;
int f = 5;
std::for_each(&numbers[0], &numbers[nn], [&] (int n) {
James Dennett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Concepts have recently been removed from the C++0x Standard Draft.
Will the concepts branch be discontinued?
I hope not. Concepts will be "finished" and re-added to C++, and it
would be immensely helpful in th
Greetings,
In my efforts to build C++-0X library components I've noticed that
constexpr member variables are used in several places. I was unable to
implement these as intended and reverted to const accessors.
It seems like the intent is sort of a static const function except that
it binds
alog would ensue and that new people
are eased
into a different culture in a welcoming manner. This would require a
change in workflow
and project structure for gpascal. But I think it is worth it.
I really hope that these issues and others can be resolved for the
benefit of all.
Peace,
Ed Smith-Rowland
inline std::ostream & operator<<( std::ostream & output, const
DataGrid & data_grid )
{
return data_grid.write( output );
}
I actually think that 3.4 is right!!!
Am I wrong?
I'll try mainline and 4.1 when I get back home.
Ed Smith-Rowland
It turns ou
ataGrid
& data_grid )
{
return data_grid.write( output );
}
I actually think that 3.4 is right!!!
Am I wrong?
I'll try mainline and 4.1 when I get back home.
Ed Smith-Rowland
On 11/13/2005 02:13 PM, Brian Makin wrote:
[snip]
If some folks are interested we should talk to the D
people and suggest an acceptable D frontend.
I for one would be willing to pitch in.
There's already one, IIUC:
The link below seems like a more mature effort (it even work
with it much but it built.
I think at least some people would be interested in this and what
portion of Objective-C++ is working.
New Languages and Language specific improvements
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland
t doesn't have time for
it. The
GNUStep people are also interested.
Good Luck!
Ed Smith-Rowland
James A. Morrison wrote:
Ed Smith-Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 1 Mar 2005 at 8:17, James A. Morrison wrote:
Hi,
I've decided I'm going to try to take the time and cleanup and
update
the
Pascal frontend for gcc and try it get it integrated into the upstream
s
ry effort but there would probably be less regret later if we adopt
the standard toolchain. The decision to go to Subversion was not taken lightly.
Ed Smith-Rowland
51 matches
Mail list logo
