Tobias wrote:
>>Am Mi., 12. Feb. 2025 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Frederick Virchanza Gotham:
>> This would be an alternative to modules (seeing as how modules might
>> become deprecated in the future).
>Huch? Where did you catch that? Did I miss something?
I think it might be a possibility given how
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>On Sun, 9 Feb 2025, 00:24 Frederick Virchanza Gotham wrote:
>> As the GNU compiler make its way through a translation unit, more and
>> more classes get declared. So for each translation unit, the compiler
>> maintains a list of what types it has seen so far.
>>
>> Could
As the GNU compiler make its way through a translation unit, more and
more classes get declared. So for each translation unit, the compiler
maintains a list of what types it has seen so far.
Could someone please point me to where in the GNU g++ source code I
will find this container object? What's
Some modern CPU's now have control flow enforcement. Here's how it
works on Intel CPU's:
"The shadow stack stores a copy of the return address of each CALL. On
a RET, the processor checks if the return address stored in the normal
stack and shadow stack are equal. If the addresses are not equal, t
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 9:38 AM LIU Hao wrote:
>
> 2024-08-20 16:13, Frederick Virchanza Gotham:
> >
> > I want to write a new calling convention into the GNU g++ compiler,
> > specifically for the x86_64 instruction set.
>
> The x64 calling convention is much more complex than x86. Each of the fi
I want to write a new calling convention into the GNU g++ compiler,
specifically for the x86_64 instruction set.
On MS-Windows, the x64 calling convention puts the first argument in RCX,
and puts the return value in RAX. I wish to write a new calling convention
which uses RAX for both the first ar
