This is basically if it has any interest..or else ignore...
This inverts the digits.
So 321 should be 123..not tested
We only invert the ten bases, but it can be ok for others.
A) 1*10^4 + 2*10^3 + 3*10^2 + 4*10^1 + 5 * 10^0
B) 10^4 + 10^2 +
You keep talking about a broken link without telling us where it is.
But I don't think we're interested anyway, that's why nobody has replied.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 12:24, Richard @ Quality Nonsense PR Team
wrote:
>
> Dear GCC Team,
>
> Just checking in one last time to make sure we don't get
Dear GCC Team,
Just checking in one last time to make sure we don't get overlooked in your
inbox.
Is there anything stopping you from recommending our long read about Digital
Equipment Corporation to your users instead of the broken DEC link, out of
interest?
I'm always interested in actiona
Dear GCC Team,
I'm following up to make sure you didn't miss my email about your broken link
to DEC.com. What did you think about my idea of citing our long read about
Digital Equipment Corporation instead? Can I answer any questions, perhaps?
Richard
Digital.com
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 a
Dear GCC Team,
I’m writing because you cite DEC.com in this post on GCC - but the website has
been offline for 5+ years!
At Digital.com, we've published a "long read" on the rise and fall of Digital
Equipment Corporation, which I thought make an "easy fix" to send your readers
somewhere more u
What is up,my honeyboy. I kno you in F-book last few days and I want to see you.
My Name Mary
I do some page with my cool pics.
I`ll Wait your arms.
My nick : Gibbs112.
Com`om Find me there!
hey, got a new emailjust dropping by to say hi.
I got some videos online at http://one.revver.com/find/video/AltimitHacker .
u should check them out, they're pretty funny.
On 4/20/05, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes this was intentional, you should not be using the builtin functions,
> instead use intrinsics from the header files.
Now that intrinsics are first class citizens it would be a real plus
if someone could convince gcc to not spit horrors like
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Yes this was intentional, you should not be using the builtin functions,
instead use intrinsics from the header files.
I've just rewritten the code to use the intrinsics from the header files
(xmmintrin.h). It now reads _mm_foo() instead of __builtin_ia32_foo().
The problem n
>
> > Looks like it disappeared here:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00613.html
> >
> > I think the list of i386 builtin functions is now out of date in the
> > documentation.
>
> The following differences now exist between the documentation and the
> current 4.1 x86 code.
Looks like it disappeared here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00613.html
I think the list of i386 builtin functions is now out of date in the
documentation.
The following differences now exist between the documentation and the
current 4.1 x86 code.
I do not know whether all of
Ãystein Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I have written in an earlier post here, I'm trying to vectorize
> some loops with intrinsics and I have also got a gcc 4.1 snapshot
> (20050410). However when I try to compile my code with the gcc-4.1
> snapshot I get:
>
> /msys/1.0/home/mingw/bin
As I have written in an earlier post here, I'm trying to vectorize some
loops with intrinsics and I have also got a gcc 4.1 snapshot (20050410).
However when I try to compile my code with the gcc-4.1 snapshot I get:
/msys/1.0/home/mingw/bin/gcc.exe -g -Wall -O3 -msse -mtune=pentium3
-DHAVE_CONF
13 matches
Mail list logo
