Apologises for the slightly off-topic message.
One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++ messageboards
is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())" do not declare
which order f() and g() will be executed in.
How hard would it be to fix the order of execution in gcc/g++? Co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan Sands wrote:
| On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 10:51 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
|
|>Paolo Carlini wrote:
|>
|>>Andrew Haley wrote:
|>>
|>>
|>>>F9.4.4 requires pow (x, 0) to return 1 for any x, even NaN.
|>>>
|>>>
|>>
|>>Indeed. My point, basically, is that
Ronny Peine wrote:
Well, i'm studying mathematics and as i know so far 0^0 is always 1
(for real and complex numbers) and well defined even in numerical and
theoretical mathematics. Could you point me to some publications which
say other things?
cu, Ronny
Just wanting to put in my mathematical
Ronny Peine wrote:
Well, i'm studying mathematics and as i know so far 0^0 is always 1
(for real and complex numbers) and well defined even in numerical and
theoretical mathematics. Could you point me to some publications which
say other things?
cu, Ronny
Just wanting to put in my mathematical
Chris Friesen wrote:
I'm not sure who I should address this to...I hope this is correct.
If I share memory between two processes, and protect access to the
memory using standard locking (fcntl(), for instance), do I need to
specify that the memory is volatile? Or is the fact that I'm using
fcnt
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
Consider the following short program:
#include
void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
{
for (int x=0; x
MinP[x] = SrcP[x]
}
void Tst2(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len)
Vasanth wrote:
Hi,
I am working on a fresh C++ port and I am filling in all the machine
specific hooks.
How do I run the C++ testsuite on my compiler? I am familiar with the
GCC torture/execute tests and have my backend passing those tests
reasonably well. Now, I am looking for something similar fo
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2005-05-24 09:04:11 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
I would like to point out that for applications that crunch data
from real world (no infinites or nans, where precision is not
critical) such as various simulations, -ffast-math is something that
can speed up applicatio
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Marc Espie wrote:
Heck, I can plot trajectories on a sphere that do not follow great circles,
and that extend over 360 degrees in longitude. I don't see why I should be
restricted from doing that.
Can you show me a circumstance where sin(x - 2 * pi) and sin(x
Kai Henningsen wrote:
The entire GCC website (of which GCC
Bugzilla is a part) could be the poster child for why developers
should never be allowed to design user interfaces, especially web user
interfaces. I'm sure I'll get flamed for wanting style over substance
or about the proliferation of e
Lee Millward wrote:
I'd like to get started with helping to develop GCC but am seeking
some advice from those of you who are regular contributors on the best
approach to adopt.
I have spent the last few weeks reading the gcc-patches mailing list
and the documentation available on GCC from the W
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Take a break and come back with results of actual work done,
this impresses people a lot more than (repeated) ranting about
gcc development in general.
I have worked on GCC; not much, and probably trivial in your eyes,
but practical wor
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>|
>| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>| >
>| >>> Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser,
>| >>> especially when doing searchs.
>| >> You must be cl
Mirco Lorenzoni wrote:
>Can a pointer appear in a C/C++ relational expression which doesn't test the
>equality (or the inequality) of that pointer with respect to another pointer?
>For example, are the comparisons in the following program legal code?
>
>/* test.c */
>#include
>
>int main(int ar
This is not the correct mailing list for help using gcc, it is for help
developing gcc. Use gcc-help in future please.
Michael Gatford wrote:
>
>
>std::map::const_iterator functionIterator =
> quickfindtag.find(funcname);
put "typename" at the beginning of this line.
Chris
I realise that according to the C++ standard it isn't legal to compare
two pointers which are not from the same array. Is anyone aware of
anything in g++ which would actually forbid this, and if there is any
way of checking if will be valid?
I want to be able to perform two main operations. Firstl
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>Since last week this small program does no longer compile.
>My question are:
>Is this correct or should I file a bug report?
>How is it possible to initialize an iterator to NULL?
>
>
>
A patch was recently submitted specifically to stop this working, as it
shouldn't.
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:56 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
>
>> Or am I the only person to find that disk is expensive (or working
>> on his own hardware, maybe)?
>
>
> A checkout costs US$0.50. This is around 2.6x more expensive than a
> cvs checkout. Check around locally
聂久焘 wrote:
> The C++ standard said Container::size() should have constant complexity
> (ISO/IEC 14882:1998, pp. 461, Table 65), while the std::list::size() in
> current STL of GCC is defined as { std::distance(begin(), end()); }, whose
> complexiy is O(n).
>
> Is it a bug?
>
>
This question wo
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>> > > The problem in this PR is that code like in the testcase (from
>>> > OpenOffice) assumes that pointer overflow is defined. As the
>>> > standard does not talk
On 5/25/06, Marek Zuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
thanks a lot for your reply.
I'm not sure if you understood what I meant...
I'm a student of the Faculty of Mathematics & Computer Science at the
Warsaw University of Technology. I'm in my final year of my studies
(MSc) and I'm working on my f
Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:47:03PM -0800, Matt Austern wrote:
I'm sure there are still lots of horrible bugs, which will only be
found with a more complete test suite. But the core functionality
works, and at this point I think it'll improve faster in the CVS server
than s
I take it as a lame property of our current inlining heuristics
and function size estimate that for
inline int foo { return 0; }
int bar { return foo(); }
the size estimate of foo is 2, that of bar is initially 13 and 5
after inlining. 3.4 did better in that it has 1 for foo, 12 for bar
before
On 15/06/12 21:45, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
IMO, at the /very least/, libstdc++ should go ahead and change std::string
to be the new implementation. Once std::string is ABI-incompatible between
the modes, there's basically no chance that an
Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
to the garbage collector?
One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
destructors. If the (I believe very reasonable) decision is made to
require that running destructors is not necessary for garbage
colle
25 matches
Mail list logo
