--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22519
--- Comment #8 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-04 16:02 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I think this one is fixed, isn't it?
>
Yes, I think so too. Fixed.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 16:27
---
I think this one is fixed, isn't it?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-11-05 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > We need to settle what kind of disk image we want for real(kind=10)
> > before resolving this for complex.
>
> I am strongly in favour of real(kind=10) being wr
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-03 10:36
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We need to settle what kind of disk image we want for real(kind=10)
> before resolving this for complex.
I am strongly in favour of real(kind=10) being written as 12 bytes on disk.
This
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
19:52 ---
We need to settle what kind of disk image we want for real(kind=10)
before resolving this for complex.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
14:35 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> ultimately, things have to be written by a system call, and a system call is
> expensive. (One system call per array element is out of the question.)
With the current implemen
--- Additional Comments From schnetter at uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-07-17
20:01 ---
My argument -- which I had in my head, but didn't put down -- went as follows:
ultimately, things have to be written by a system call, and a system call is
expensive. (One system call per array element
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-17
19:45 ---
I don't think the timing issue is valid.
Look at these benchmarks:
The first one simulates copying 12-byte values to 10-bit values,
the second one a compact memcpy of a larger field.
$ cat foo.c
#include
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
GCC build triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
11 matches
Mail list logo
