On 12/15/2017 02:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 12/07/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2017 03:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>
> So I think that's the final ack on this series.
Thanks to both of you, r
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2017 03:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
So I think that's the final ack on this series.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks to both of you, really appreciate it!
>>
>> Sorry it took so long.
>>
>>>
On 12/07/2017 03:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/07/2017 03:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
So I think that's the final ack on this series.
Thanks to both of you, really appreciate it!
Sorry it took so long.
Richard S. can you confirm? I fully expect the trunk has moved some
and the patche
On 12/07/2017 03:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> So I think that's the final ack on this series.
>
> Thanks to both of you, really appreciate it!
Sorry it took so long.
>
>> Richard S. can you confirm? I fully expect the trunk has moved some
>> and the patches will need adjustments -- consi
Jeff Law writes:
> On 12/07/2017 07:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent poly
On 12/07/2017 07:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/13/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Richard Sandiford writes:
Richard Sandiford writes:
> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
> of
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> Richard Sandiford writes:
This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
of the form:
C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
On 11/13/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
>>> of the form:
>>>
>>> C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
>>>
>>> It also adds poly_int-based typedefs for offsets
On 11/13/2017 04:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
Let me say at the outset that I struggle to comprehend that a few
instructions is even a consideration when not optimizing, especially
in light of the bug the m
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 11/13/2017 04:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>> On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>
> Let me say at the outset that I struggle to comprehend that a few
> instructions is even a consideration when not optimizing, especially
>
On 11/13/2017 04:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I struggle to comprehend that a few
instructions is even a consideration when not optimizing, especially
in light of the bug the macro caused that w
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
>> of the form:
>>
>> C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
>>
>> It also adds poly_int-based typedefs for offsets and sizes of various
>> precisions. In these typedefs, th
Jeff Law writes:
> On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>>> Let me say at the outset that I struggle to comprehend that a few
>>> instructions is even a consideration when not optimizing, especially
>>> in light of the bug the macro caused that would have been prevented
>>> by using
On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Let me say at the outset that I struggle to comprehend that a few
>> instructions is even a consideration when not optimizing, especially
>> in light of the bug the macro caused that would have been prevented
>> by using a function instead. But.
On 11/09/2017 04:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 11:28 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
I have
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 11/08/2017 11:28 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Martin Sebor writes:
>>> On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Martin Sebor writes:
>>> I haven't done nearly a thoro
On 11/08/2017 11:28 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
the placement
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Martin Sebor writes:
>>> On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
> I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
> the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() ma
On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() macro caught my eye so
I thought I'd ask soon
On 11/08/2017 09:51 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() macro caught my eye so
I thought I'd ask soon
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Martin Sebor writes:
>>> I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
>>> the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() macro caught my eye so
>>> I thought I'd ask sooner rather than later. Given the macr
On 11/08/2017 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() macro caught my eye so
I thought I'd ask sooner rather than later. Given the macro
definition:
+ The dummy compari
Richard Sandiford writes:
> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
> of the form:
>
> C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
>
> It also adds poly_int-based typedefs for offsets and sizes of various
> precisions. In these typedefs, the Ci coefficients are compile-time
>
Martin Sebor writes:
> I haven't done nearly a thorough review but the dtor followed by
> the placement new in the POLY_SET_COEFF() macro caught my eye so
> I thought I'd ask sooner rather than later. Given the macro
> definition:
>
> + The dummy comparison against a null C * is just a way of c
On 10/23/2017 10:57 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
of the form:
C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
It also adds poly_int-based typedefs for offsets and sizes of various
precisions. In these typedefs, the Ci coefficients are co
This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers
of the form:
C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... + Cn*Xn
It also adds poly_int-based typedefs for offsets and sizes of various
precisions. In these typedefs, the Ci coefficients are compile-time
constants and the Xi indeterminates are
26 matches
Mail list logo