Re: performance of exception handling

> Just echoing what David said really, but: if the libgcc changes > are expected to be portable beyond glibc, then the existence of > an alternative option for glibc shouldn't block the libgcc changes. > The two approaches aren't be mutually exclusive and each approach > would achieve something tha

Re: performance of exception handling

> Some people use exceptions to propagate "low memory" up which > made me increase the size of the EH emergency pool (which is > used when malloc cannot even allocate the EH data itself) ... > > So yes, people care. There absolutely has to be a path in > unwinding that allocates no (as little as

Re: performance of exception handling

> Not all GCC/G++ targets are GNU/Linux and use GLIBC. A duplicate > implementation in GLIBC creates its own set of advantages and > disadvantages. so what should I do now? Should I try to move the lookup into GLIBC? Or handled it within libgcc, as I had originally proposed? Or give up due to the

Re: performance of exception handling

> Link: > > I'm not sure if your summary is correct. I was referring to Section 3.2, where Herb says: "We must remove all technical reasons for a C++ project to disable exception handling (e.g., by compiler switch) or ban use of exceptions, in all or part of their proje

performance of exception handling

Hi, I want to improve the performance of C++ exception handling, and I would like to get some feedback on how to tackle that. Currently, exception handling scales poorly due to global mutexes when throwing. This can be seen with a small demo script here: https://repl.it/repls/DeliriousPrivateProf

Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK

> Well anyone can think anything, but this view is way out of the > mainstream. I do not know of a single large real project using a > large complex language that does not have coding standards that > limit the use of the language. I know this, but I do not understand this. I have worked in reasona

Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK

> Because C++ is a big language, I think we should try to enumerate what > is OK, rather than what is not OK. > Is there anyone who would like to volunteer to develop the C++ coding > standards? I hope you you don't mind my question (as I am currently not an active GCC developer), but what is the

Re: Why not contribute? (to GCC)

> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC? I tried this a while ago, but ultimately gave up because I could not get my patches in. Some were applied, but many never made it. Admittedly they were perhaps not of general interested, there were only improving compatibility of the gcc base wit

Re: The gcc-in-cxx branch now completes bootstrap

Curious. I ran both g++ variants in oprofile, and then compared the generated assembler code for the most critical functions. The top 1 function in both cases is pointer_set_insert, and there the assembler code is 100% identical (module one choice between r14 and r15). The second most critical

Re: The gcc-in-cxx branch now completes bootstrap

Ben Elliston wrote: > Try using -ftime-report. thanks, that was what I had in mind. The largest difference seems to be in "tree STMT verifier" (36% runtime increase), a few others increased slightly, most seem to be nearly identical. (This distribution could be an artifact of my example code, of

Re: The gcc-in-cxx branch now completes bootstrap

>> Also, is there any significant difference in bootstrap times? > > I haven't actually measured, but subjectively bootstrap does seem to > take longer. I tried this out of curiosity. The numbers below are the bootstrap times on a 64bit 2.6.28 Linux system (Core 2 E8400), building single threaded

Re: gcc-in-cxx branch created

Hi, On 2008-06-17 23:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch > gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was > better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is > to develop a version of gcc which is comp

Re: Bribing a reviewer

> looking for something to review. And when posting a patch, try to make it > easy for reviewers to tell that your patch is for their part of GCC. I see your point. I originally thought I would be sending one patch for whole gcc (as I have the complete patch ready), just broken into smaller parts f

insn_code -> tree_code in tree-vect-transform.c

Hi, as of revision 125076, tree-vect-transform.c contains the following code in line 2010: enum tree_code code, code1 = CODE_FOR_nothing, code2 = CODE_FOR_nothing; This most likely wrong, CODE_FOR_nothing is an insn_code, not a tree_code. Unfortunately there is no obvious fix (at least not obvio

Bribing a reviewer

Hi, about two weeks ago I started submitting patches for C++ compatibility. Unfortunately reviewing as been, ahem, a bit slow. Probably because nobody cares about C++ compatibility. As I have only send 4% of the total patch so far, the current acceptance rate (as in 0 patches in 2 weeks) bothers m

Re: genautomata.c bug

> Looks like you're right to me. We get away with it because a decl is larger > than a regexp. Testing a patch now. this would be fixed by my patch here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00814.html which is not reviewed yet. The patch switches to typesafe memory allocation, which u

tree_code and type safety

Hi, while waiting for my copyright assignment, I continued compiling gcc with a C++ compiler. Most problems are minor, but now I encountered one where I am unsure what to do: The basic tree codes are defined by the enum tree_code, that basically looks like this: enum tree_code { LAST_AND_

Re: [RFA] C++ language compatibility in sources [was RE: Add missing casts in gengtype-lex]

Dave Korn schrieb: > Maybe it would make more sense to bundle them up into two tranches, one for > all the gen* utilities, one for the compiler core itself. That would be much > more practical to do the full bootstrap-and-regtest procedure. indeed. To get a full C++ compliant compiler I would prob

Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

> For this _specific_ instance of the general problem, C++ users could > use numeric_limits::max() and get away with it, but I don't > believe such a solution (or the one you propose or similar I've seen) > to this specific instance generalizes to portable, readable and > maintainable solution to t

Re: Where is the egg?

> These are pngcrushed versions with linear dimensions between 50% and 80% of > the 200-pixel-high original. how about using a svg image as a master instead of a png? It could be scaled without loss. I attached a svg produced from the original png. Thomas gcc.svg.bz2 Description: Binary data