On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 13:54 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
>> > hundred new classes, which will be singletons i
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 20:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > So I envisage a "--enable-shared" configuration switch to opt-in to the
> > shared library code, but I want as minimize the difference between the
> > two cases.
>
> --enable-host-shared or
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 13:54 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
> > hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a classic monolithic
> > build, but have multiple instanc
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
> hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a classic monolithic
> build, but have multiple instances in a shared-library build.
>
> In order to avoid the register
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
> So I envisage a "--enable-shared" configuration switch to opt-in to the
> shared library code, but I want as minimize the difference between the
> two cases.
--enable-host-shared or --enable-shared-gcc or some other such option
name, please, not plain -
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 08:16 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
> >> hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a cla
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 06:37 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] ca
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
>>> hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a cl
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a classic monolithic
build, but have multiple instances in a shared-librar
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
> hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a classic monolithic
> build, but have multiple instances in a shared-library build.
>
> In order to avoid the registe
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 11:36 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I forgot the ChangeLog entries:
gcc/
2013-07-01 David Malcolm
* doc/extend.texi (Type Attributes): Document new "force_static"
attribute.
gcc/cp/
2013-07-01 David Malcolm
* cp-tree.h (struct lang_type_
My plan for removal of global variables in gcc 4.9 [1] calls for several
hundred new classes, which will be singletons in a classic monolithic
build, but have multiple instances in a shared-library build.
In order to avoid the register pressure of passing a redundant "this"
pointer around for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
