(repeated, forgot to reply to mailing list)
Xi Ruoyao misses completely the point!
The amount of error prone boilerplate code, that the programmer would
have to write, is huge. See examples in the excellent presentation
"C++ coroutines: a negative overhead abstraction"
https://www.slideshare.net/
I understand the need for .quick_push(), when we know the size of the
allocated elements before hand, but do we really need to call the
common variant safe_push? Can't we just call it push()?
Or is there some magic C++ rule/idiom that prohibits us from doing this?
I volunteer to provide a patch
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I understand the need for .quick_push(), when we know the size of the
> allocated elements before hand, but do we really need to call the
> common variant safe_push? Can't we just call it push()?
>
> Or is there some magic C++ rule/idiom th
So ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things
as they are?
Aldy
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> I understand the need for .quick_push(), when we know the size of the
>> allocated elements
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> So ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things
> as they are?
Either leave as-is or default to the lazy one.
Richard.
> Aldy
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1
On 08/31/2017 07:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
So ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things
as they are?
Either leave as-is or default to the lazy one.
Agreed.
--
Nathan Sidwell
Paul S schrieb:
I've ported gcc to a 16 bit CPU and have all torture tests passing bar
one, pr52286.c
The offending lines of code are
long a, b = 0;
asm ("" : "=r" (a) : "0" (0));
which should cause zero to be assigned to the "a" SI sized variable.
Inspecting the generated code revealed t
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> So ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things
>> as they are?
>
> Either leave as-is or default to the lazy one.
FWIW, I think we should leave it. The risk isn't just laziness:
it could ma
Snapshot gcc-7-20170831 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20170831/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
