On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:09:10PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> The preferred way of communication is email posted to the mailing list
> (sometimes CCing the people you think are most likely to reply) and I am
> quite confident that people will read it and reply to reasonable
> questions and revie
Hello Mohamed,
sorry for a late reply. I was traveling and in various meetings over
the course of the last two weeks and could not pay as much attention to
email as I would have liked to. It is always better to CC the GCC
mailing list so that others can step in, not just when I am not
available
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 19 2021, Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote:
> Hello there,
> We are 6 students from Egypt and now We are in our last year and We need to
> build a project as a graduation project.
> And We are interested in the area of runtime systems, operating systems and
> compilers.
> We are going
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other
> measure of pressure? The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does
> not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not).
>
> It would be good to get L
Hello!
1.) The processor_costs structure seems very limited, but seem very
easily to "fill in" but are these costs supposed to be best or worst
case? For instance, many instructions with different sized operands
vary in latency.
Instruction costs are further refined in config/i386.c, ix86_rt
> Ok since I'm very new to this are there any switches when compiling this
> source for development purposes?
Not really. If you're building from the CVS tree, various assertion checks
will be
enabled already (they are explicitly disabled in releases). You may want to
build
GCC with -g ins
