Hello.
I would like to ask folks what is their opinion about support of precompiled
headers for
future releases of GCC. From my point of view, the feature brings some
speed-up, but question
is if it's worth for?
Last time I hit precompiled headers was when I was rewriting memory
allocation sta
On 2015.05.27 at 10:14 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> I would like to ask folks what is their opinion about support of
> precompiled headers for future releases of GCC. From my point of view,
> the feature brings some speed-up, but question is if it's worth for?
>
> Last time I hit precompiled heade
On 27 May 2015 at 10:01, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> And until C++ modules are implemented (unfortunately nobody is working
> on this AFAIK) pch is still the only option left. So deprecating them
> now seem premature.
I doubt anyone's going to implement them until they're specified, the
proposals
2015-05-27 6:31 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 05/25/2015 09:27 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> 2015-05-22 15:01 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
>>>
>>> 2015-05-22 11:53 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
2015-05-21 22:08 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Makarov :
>
> So, Ilya, to solve the problem you need to avoi
There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt eliding
PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
and dynamic linker must ensure that pointer equality is maintained. Which
resu
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt
> eliding
> PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
>
> They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
> and dyna
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150527 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150527/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt
> eliding
> PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
>
> They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
> and dyna
