On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:44:24AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
> I guess the most important missing optimizations are various forms of
> code unification, such as the sequence abstraction code that GCC used
> to have (http://gcc.gnu.org/p
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:15 PM, ir_idjit wrote:
>
> i've been writing bits of codes where it requires to have an array or
> "pointers to functions", so the decision of which function to execute is
> indexed... (i know, a lot of you will say "well, that's a VERY specific of a
> solution, there's
Yao Qi writes:
>
> During the investigation, I feel that all the potential improvements
> are identified by ARM experts or by reading asm code manually. This
> mode doesn't scale very well. IMO, it is necessary to have a
> target-independent framework for code size optimization. I have no
> ide
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Was CFO finally merged to mainline? At least, I can't find it in
> current gcc.
Yes, it was merged.
And then it was removed again because the implementation had several
big problems. Such as, it didn't actually work.
Ciao!
Steven
Hi,
I have a patch in testing which streamlines a bit and wanted
to make sure we are supporting well mixed-mode __complex__ arithmetic, like:
__complex__ double cd1;
__complex__ float cf1;
cd1 *= cf1;
are we aware of any special problem in this area?
Thanks!
Paolo.
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:50:07 -0700
J Decker wrote:
[...]
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > void *(*func)(void **);
> > func;
> strange that this does anything... since it also requires a pointer to
> a pointer...
I think the compiler is right: "func" is a pointer to a function.
Since the () op
Hello!
http://gcc.skazkaforyou.com
location: Canada
Please contact me about this mirror.
Thanks.
Sergey
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Try reading some examples from http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/
> Since the criteria of the comparisons is code size it can show
> you where gcc is behind some other compilers
>
> (but note that these comparisons do not include th
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a patch in testing which streamlines a bit and wanted
> to make sure we are supporting well mixed-mode __complex__ arithmetic, like:
>
> __complex__ double cd1;
> __complex__ float cf1;
>
> cd1 *= cf1;
>
> are we aware of any sp
On 09/16/2010 05:26 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I am not aware of any problems. The complex float value will be converted
> to complex double as required by C99.
>
Thanks Joseph, good to now. For your curiosity, I was trying to change
the code like this:
Index: complex
On 7/16/2010 08:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:06 +0200, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
Testing the mingw64-i686* packages found at
ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/temp/MinGW (Cygwin cross
compiler, see[*]), I have obtained an ICE:
$ cat ICE_test.cpp
void foo(char const
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
> group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
> We will be taking bugzilla offline on Friday, September 17, for three
> hours starting at 18
Hi All,
Does the lto module merge all the global symbol tables maintained by
each function together? I mean, for example, if in two function bodies
there are two global variable (suppose its name is aaa) references . Are
the VAR_DECL nodes of variable aaa in the two function bodies is the
same no
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 18:06, Hongtao wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Does the lto module merge all the global symbol tables maintained by
> each function together? I mean, for example, if in two function bodies
> there are two global variable (suppose its name is aaa) references . Are
> the VAR_DECL nodes
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100916 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100916/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
